An Investigation of Structure, Flexibility, and Function Variables that Discriminate Asymptomatic Foot Types
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has been suggested that foot type considers not only foot structure (high, normal, low arch), but also function (overpronation, normal, oversupination) and flexibility (reduced, normal, excessive). Therefore, this study used canonical regression analyses to assess which variables of foot structure, function, and flexibility can accurately discriminate between clinical foot type classifications. The feet of 61 asymptomatic, healthy adults (18-77 years) were classified as cavus (N = 24), rectus (N = 54), or planus (N = 44) using standard clinical measures. Custom jigs assessed foot structure and flexibility. Foot function was assessed using an emed-x plantar pressure measuring device. Canonical regression analyses were applied separately to extract essential structure, flexibility, and function variables. A third canonical regression analysis was performed on the extracted variables to identify a combined model. The initial combined model included 30 extracted variables; however 5 terminal variables (malleolar valgus index, arch height index while sitting, first metatarsophalangeal joint laxity while standing, pressure-time integral and maximum contact area of medial arch) were able to correctly predict 80.7% of foot types. These remaining variables focused on specific foot characteristics (hindfoot alignment, arch height, midfoot mechanics, Windlass mechanism) that could be essential to discriminating foot type.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".