Effects of Lateral and Medial Wedged Insoles on Knee and Ankle Internal Joint Moments During Walking in Healthy Men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Wedged insoles have been used to treat knee pathologies and to prevent injuries. Although they have received much attention for the study of knee injury, the effects of wedges on ankle joint biomechanics are not well understood. This study sought to evaluate the immediate effects of lateral and medial wedges on knee and ankle internal joint loading and center of pressure (CoP) in men during walking. METHODS: Twenty-one healthy men walked at 1.4 m/sec in five footwear conditions: neutral, 6° (LW6) and 9° (LW9) lateral wedges, and 6° (MW6) and 9° (MW9) medial wedges. Peak internal knee abduction moments and angular impulses, internal ankle inversion moments and angular impulses, and mediolateral CoP were analyzed. Analysis of variance with post hoc analysis and Pearson correlations were performed to detect differences between conditions. RESULTS: No differences in internal knee joint loading were found between neutral and any of the wedge conditions. However, as the wedge angle increased from medial to lateral, the internal ankle inversion moment (LW6: P = .020; LW9: P < .001; MW6: P = .046; MW9: P < .001) and angular impulse (LW9: P = .012) increased, and the CoP shifted laterally (LW9: P < .001) and medially (MW9: P < .001) compared with the neutral condition. CONCLUSIONS: Neither lateral nor medial wedges were effective in altering internal knee joint loading during walking. However, the greater internal ankle inversion moment and angular impulse observed with lateral wedges could lead to a higher risk of ankle injury. Thus, caution should be taken when lateral wedges need to be prescribed.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".