Hard, soft and off-the-shelf foot orthoses and their effect on the angle of the medial longitudinal arch
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Foot orthoses have proven to be effective for conservative management of various pathologies. Pathologies of the lower limb can be caused by abnormal biomechanics such as irregular foot structure and alignment, leading to inadequate support. OBJECTIVES: To compare biomechanical effects of different foot orthoses on the medial longitudinal arch during dynamic gait using skeletal kinematics. STUDY DESIGN: This study follows a prospective, cross-sectional study design. METHODS: The medial longitudinal arch angle was measured for 12 participants among three groups: pes planus, pes cavus and normal arch. Five conditions were compared: three orthotic devices (hard custom foot orthosis, soft custom foot orthosis and off-the-shelf Barefoot Science©), barefoot and shod. An innovative method, markerless fluoroscopic radiostereometric analysis, was used to measure the medial longitudinal arch angle. RESULTS: Mean medial longitudinal arch angles for both custom foot orthosis conditions were significantly different from the barefoot and shod conditions ( p < 0.05). There was no significant difference between the off-the-shelf device and the barefoot or shod conditions ( p > 0.05). In addition, the differences between hard and soft custom foot orthoses were not statistically significant. All foot types showed a medial longitudinal arch angle decrease with both the hard and soft custom foot orthoses. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that custom foot orthoses can reduce motion of the medial longitudinal arch for a range of foot types during dynamic gait. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic study, Level 2. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Custom foot orthoses support and alter the position of the foot during weightbearing. The goal is to eliminate compensation of the foot for a structural deformity or malalignment and redistribute abnormal plantar pressures. By optimizing the position of the foot, the medial longitudinal arch (MLA) will also change and quantifying this change is of interest to clinicians.
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".