Ankle Joint and Rearfoot Biomechanics During Toe‐In and Toe‐Out Walking in People With Medial Compartment Knee Osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Toe-in and toe-out walking are 2 strategies that have been shown to be effective in reducing the knee adduction moment in people with knee osteoarthritis. However, despite a positive biomechanical impact on the knee, altering foot rotation may impart unintended forces or joint positions on the ankle that could impact joint health. The kinematic and kinetic changes at the ankle during toe-in or toe-out walking have yet to be examined. OBJECTIVE: To examine ankle/rearfoot biomechanics during toe-in and toe-out walking in those with knee osteoarthritis. DESIGN: Single-session repeated measures design to compare ankle biomechanics during walking with 4 different foot rotations. SETTING: University motion analysis laboratory. PARTICIPANTS: A convenience sample (N = 15) of males and females with a diagnosis of medial knee osteoarthritis confirmed by radiographs. METHODS: Participants walked in 4 conditions guided by real-time biofeedback: (1) toe-in (+10°), (2) zero rotation (0°), (3) toe-out (-10°), and (4) toe-out (-20°). Ankle and rearfoot kinematics and kinetics were examined during barefoot over-ground walking. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Ankle joint angles, moments, moment impulses, and foot rotation. RESULTS: Overall, toe-in compared to toe-out walking decreased (P = .03) peak rearfoot eversion (toe-in = -1.6°; 10° toe-out = -3.7°; 20° toe-out = -4.1°). Toe-in compared to toe-out walking also increased rearfoot inversion at initial contact (7.4° vs 3.1° at 10° toe-out and 1.9° at 20° toe-out; P < .001) and frontal plane rearfoot angle excursion (9.0° vs 6.8° at 10° toe-out and 6.0° at 20° toe-out; P < .006). Toe-in compared to all other conditions increased peak external ankle inversion moments (0.04 Nm/kg vs 0.02 Nm/kg at 0°, 0.02 Nm/kg at 10° toe-out, and 0.01 Nm/kg at 20° toe-out; P < .003). CONCLUSIONS: Toe-in and toe-out walking require different ankle/rearfoot biomechanics, though no differences in discomfort were observed. Longer-term studies are required to properly assess these relationships in knee osteoarthritis populations. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".