MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3088628749 · doi:10.1186/s13047-020-00426-8

Associations of foot and ankle characteristics with knee symptoms and function in individuals with patellofemoral osteoarthritis

2020· article· en· W3088628749 on OpenAlexaff
Jade M. Tan, Kay M. Crossley, Shannon E. Munteanu, Natalie J. Collins, Harvi F. Hart, Joel W. Donnar, Gearoid Cleary, Isobel C. O’Sullivan, Liam Maclachlan, Catherine L. Derham, Hylton B. Menz

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Foot and Ankle Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLower Extremity Biomechanics and Pathologies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNational Health and Medical Research CouncilMedical Research Council
KeywordsMedicineOsteoarthritisAnkleFoot (prosody)Range of motionKnee painPhysical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationAnkle dorsiflexionOrthopedic surgeryRehabilitationPatellofemoral pain syndromeKnee JointSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Foot and ankle characteristics are associated with patellofemoral pain (PFP) and may also relate to patellofemoral osteoarthritis (PFOA). A greater understanding of these characteristics and PFOA, could help to identify effective targeted treatments. Objectives To determine whether foot and ankle characteristics are associated with knee symptoms and function in individuals with PFOA. Methods For this cross‐sectional study we measured weightbearing ankle dorsiflexion range of motion, foot posture (via the Foot Posture Index [FPI]), and midfoot mobility (via the Foot Measurement Platform), and obtained patient‐reported outcomes for knee symptoms and function (100 mm visual analogue scales, Anterior Knee Pain Scale [AKPS], Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, repeated single step‐ups and double‐leg sit‐to‐stand to knee pain onset). Pearson's r with significance set at p < 0.05 was used to determine the association between foot and ankle charateristics, with knee symptoms and function, adjusting for age. Results 188 participants (126 [67%] women, mean [SD] age of 59.9 [7.1] years, BMI 29.3 [5.6] kg/m2) with symptomatic PFOA were included in this study. Lower weightbearing ankle dorsiflexion range of motion had a small significant association with higher average knee pain (partial r = − 0.272, p < 0.001) and maximum knee pain during stair ambulation (partial r = − 0.164, p = 0.028), and lower scores on the AKPS (indicative of greater disability; partial r = 0.151, p = 0.042). Higher FPI scores (indicating a more pronated foot posture) and greater midfoot mobility (foot mobility magnitude) were significantly associated with fewer repeated single step‐ups (partial r = − 0.181, p = 0.023 and partial r = − 0.197, p = 0.009, respectively) and double‐leg sit‐to‐stands (partial r = − 0.202, p = 0.022 and partial r = − 0.169, p = 0.045, respectively) to knee pain onset, although the magnitude of these relationships was small. The amount of variance in knee pain and disability explained by the foot and ankle characteristics was small (R2‐squared 2 to 8%). Conclusions Lower weightbearing ankle dorsiflexion range of motion, a more pronated foot posture, and greater midfoot mobility demonstrated small associations with worse knee pain and greater disability in individuals with PFOA. Given the small magnitude of these relationships, it is unlikely that interventions aimed solely at addressing foot and ankle mobility will have substantial effects on knee symptoms and function in this population. Trial registration The RCT was prospectively registered on 15 March 2017 with the Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ( ANZCTRN12617000385347 ).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.227 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Foot and Ankle ResearchSame topicLower Extremity Biomechanics and PathologiesFrench-language works237,207