Plantar flexion, dorsiflexion, range of movement and hindfoot deviation are important determinants of foot function in children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Paediatric foot surgery is often performed to restore anatomical shape or range of movement (ROM). The purpose of this study was to determine how foot morphology and ROM are associated with foot function in children aged five to 16 years of age. METHODS: Participants included 89 patients with foot disorders and 58 healthy controls. In addition to measuring children's foot alignment and ankle ROM, children and parents completed the Oxford Ankle and Foot Questionnaire (OxAFQ). RESULTS: Mean age was 10.3 years for patients and 10.6 years for controls; 53 of 89 patients had clubfoot. All foot measurements and scores on the OxAFQ significantly differed (p < 0.001) between patients and controls. Patients and their parents significantly differed on the physical (p = 0.03) and emotional (p = 0.02) domains of the OxAFQ, with parents' ratings being lower than their children. Moderate correlations (r = 0.54 to 0.059; p < 0.001) were found between physical domain (reported by parents on the OxAFQ) and dorsiflexion-knee flexed, and foot- arc-of-movement. Moderate correlations were found between physical domain (reported by children on OxAFQ) and foot-arc-of-movement (r = 0.56; p < 0.001). Patients in the surgical group showed moderate correlations (r = 0.57;, p < 0.001) between physical domain (reported by children on OxAFQ) and plantar flexion, and foot arc-of-movement. The control group and the patients in non-surgical subgroup showed no significant correlations. CONCLUSION: Plantar flexion, arc of ankle ROM and hindfoot alignment impact foot function in children with foot deformities. Parents report significantly lower scores on the OxAFQ when judging foot functioning. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II. Prognostic Studies.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".