Assessment of foot posture and related factors in patients with knee osteoarthritis
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".