발의 형태학적 특성에 따른 시공간 보행 변인과 하지의 기능 및 통증 차이
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate the differences in spatiotemporal gait performance, function, and pain of lower-extremity according to foot morphological characteristics. Method: This case-control study recruited 42 adults and they were classified into 3 groups according to foot morphology using navicular-drop test: pronated (≥ 10 mm), normal (5~9 mm), and supinated (≤ 4 mm) feet. Spatiotemporal gait analysis and questionnaires including Foot and Ankle Ability Measure activities of daily living / Sports, Western Ontario and McMasters Universities Osteoarthritis Index, Lower Extremity Functional Scale, International Physical Activity Questionnaire, and Tegner activity score were conducted. One-way analysis of variance was used for statistical analysis. Results: The pronated feet group showed longer loading response and double limb support in both feet and increased pre-swing phase in non-dominant feet. The supinated feet group demonstrated a longer swing phase in non-dominant feet and single limb support in dominant feet. However, there was no significant group difference in function and pain of knee joint and lower-extremity between groups. Conclusion: Our results indicated that abnormal spatiotemporal gait performance according to foot morphology. Although there was no difference in lower extremity dysfunction and pain according to the difference in foot morphology, they have the possibility of symptom occurs as a result of continuous participation in activities of daily living and sports. Therefore, individuals with pronated or supinated foot should be supplemented by utilizing an orthosis or training to restore normal gait performance.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".