Relationship between tip-toe behavior and soleus - gastrocnemius muscle lengths in individuals with autism spectrum disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: About 20% of individuals with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) showed tip-toe behavior (TTB). This behavior may be related to a decreased ankle joint range of motion (ROM) in dorsiflexion. Physiologically, gastrocnemius (GM) and soleus (SM) muscles influence ankle ROM independently. However, no studies investigated the relationship between the amount of time individuals with ASD spend in TTB and GM and SM muscle lengths. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the relationship between three mutually exclusive clinical patterns of TTB i.e., during standing, walking and running (TTB Class 1), or during walking and running (TTB Class 2), or only when running (TTB Class 3), and GM and SM muscle lengths. METHODS: Sixty-nine individuals with ASD (average age: 14.1 ± 3.6 years, 56 males) were enrolled. In a clinical setting, SM and GM muscle lengths of both legs were assessed through a manual goniometer. Measurements were performed by two trained assessors blinded to TTB classifications. RESULTS: Individuals with ASD classified as TTB Class 1 demonstrated a shortening of both GM and SM compared with NO-TTB and TTB Class 3 individuals. CONCLUSIONS: Our results support the relationship between TTB severity and GM and SM shortening assessed by a decreased ankle joint ROM in dorsiflexion. Further studies are needed to determine the factors associated with TTB and decreased ankle ROM.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".