Assessment of foot posture and related factors in patients with knee osteoarthritis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare foot posture between patient and control groups, and to identify factors associated with foot posture abnormality in knee osteoarthritis (OA). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This case-control study included a total of 115 patients (26 males, 89 females; mean age: 54.4±9.3 years; range, 29 to 73 years) with OA and 77 healthy controls (20 males, 57 females; mean age: 52.1±8.1 years; range, 32 to 69 years) between May 2019 and July 2019. The participants were evaluated using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Visual Analog Scale (VAS), and the Beighton criteria. Radiological assessments were performed using the Kellgren-Lawrence grading, condylar plateau angle, and medial tibiofemoral joint width. The Foot Posture Index-6 (FPI-6) was used for foot posture analysis and three groups were formed as supinated, neutral, and pronated postures. RESULTS: Foot posture was significantly different between the patient and control groups (p<0.05). Of the patients with knee OA, significant differences were found in the VAS, WOMAC-pain, WOMAC-physical function, and WOMAC-total (p<0.05) among the foot postures. No significant difference was found among the foot posture groups in terms of the radiological parameters and WOMAC-stiffness (p>0.05). Hypermobility and WOMAC-total scores were significantly associated with foot posture abnormality (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: Joint hypermobility and foot posture are the factors which may influence the clinical characteristics of knee OA. Foot posture and joint hypermobility should be taken into consideration during the examination and management of patients with knee OA.
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.
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 it