Effects of solid ankle-foot orthoses with individualized ankle angles on gait for children with cerebral palsy and equinus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: For children with cerebral palsy (CP) and equinus, the conventional practice of setting the ankle angle in an ankle-foot orthosis (AA-AFO) at 90∘ may not adequately accommodate gastrocnemius length/stiffness. Therefore, this study compared the effects of statically-optimized solid AFOs with individualized AA-AFOs (iAA-AFOs) and conventionally-prescribed AFOs on gait for children with CP and equinus. METHODS: Ten children with CP and equinus (15 limbs with AFOs), and 15 typically-developing (TD) children participated. For the children with CP, solid AFOs with iAA-AFOs (range = 5∘-25∘ plantarflexion) were compared with their usual AFOs using three-dimensional gait analysis. TD children walked in shoes only. Peak values and Gait Variable Scores (GVS) for joint and segment variables were calculated for stance phase. Responses were categorized using 90% confidence intervals relative to TD data, for each affected leg. RESULTS: Net responses to iAA-AFOs were positive for 60% of limbs and negative for 40%. Knee variables (GVS and peak extension, flexion, and midstance moment) were most positively affected, and foot-floor angle and vertical ground reaction force were most negatively impacted. CONCLUSION: Individualized AFO prescription and iAA-AFOs can impact gait biomechanics for some children with equinus, compared to conventionally-prescribed AFOs. Optimizing dynamic alignment for walking may further improve outcomes.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".