Immediate effect of prefabricated and UCBL foot orthoses on alignment of midfoot and forefoot in young people with symptomatic flexible flatfoot: A radiographic evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Radiographic imaging has been considered the gold standard in evaluating the skeletal alignment of the foot in static weightbearing. The effects of foot orthoses on the alignment of foot bones have been mostly evaluated using lateral view x-rays. The posterior-anterior view has not been investigated extensively. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effects of 2 foot orthoses: University of California Biomechanics Laboratory Orthosis (UCBL) and a prefabricated orthosis (P-FFO) on the alignment of foot bones on anterior-posterior x-rays in young people with symptomatic flexible flatfoot (SFF). STUDY DESIGN: This is a randomized, crossover study. METHODS: Fifteen participants (mean [SD], 23.67 ± 2 years) with SFF were randomly imaged in 3 different conditions: shoes only, shoes + P-FFO, and shoes + UCBL. The talonavicular coverage, the first and the second talometatarsal angles, the intermetatarsal angle, and the cuboid abduction angle (CAA) were measured on weightbearing, anterior-posterior x-ray images for each condition. RESULTS: Both orthotic designs demonstrated a significant reduction in the talonavicular coverage, the first and the second talometatarsal angles, and the CAA compared with the shoe-only condition (P < .001). The talonavicular coverage angle reduced by ∼11% using P-FFO compared with UCBL (P < .005). No significant differences were observed for other angles between the 2 orthotic conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Both orthotic conditions improved the talonavicular coverage, first and the second talometatarsal angle, and CAA in young people with SFF. The walls of the UCBL orthosis did not result in further correction of the talonavicular coverage angle compared with the prefabricated FFO design.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".