MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3195893461 · doi:10.4103/pjiap.pjiap_10_20

Foot posture assessment in people with primary medial compartment knee osteoarthritis

2021· article· en· W3195893461 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Prajakta Milind Gosavi, Sona S. Kolke, Jay Chitre, Ashok Shyam, Parag Sancheti

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysiotherapy - The Journal of Indian Association of Physiotherapists · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLower Extremity Biomechanics and Pathologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOsteoarthritisFoot (prosody)Body mass indexWOMACAsymptomaticPhysical therapyBarefootHeelPopulationKnee painPhysical medicine and rehabilitationSurgeryInternal medicineAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Foot postures are integral to the biomechanical alignment and the dynamic function of the lower extremity. This study compared foot postures in people with primary medial compartment osteoarthritis (OA) and age-, gender-, and body mass index (BMI)-matched controls using various foot measures. Grade-wise variations were also assessed. AIM: The aim of the study was to assess the foot postures in people with primary medial compartment knee OA. METHODS: This was an observational, analytical study and the subjects were recruited by convenient sampling from tertiary hospitals in Pune. The target population were primary knee OA who were clinically and radiologically diagnosed for their severity based on the Kellgren–Lawrence grading, a severity classification based on radiographic evidence. The Centre of Rheumatic Diseases version of Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and the Foot Function Index (FFI) which are both self-report questionnaires were duly filled by the knee OA subjects for the pain and dysfunction of the knee and foot, respectively. The control group consisted of age-, gender-, and BMI-matched asymptomatic healthy subjects. Foot postures of all subjects namely, the OA ( n =48) and controls ( n = 33) were assessed using the foot posture index (FPI), arch index, and navicular drop test. The FPI as well as the navicular drop test categorized the subjects into 3 groups: pronated, neutral, and supinated. The arch index was calculated from the inked imprint of the foot of the affected limb where higher values indicated dropped arch. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS AND RESULTS: Independent samples Mann–Whitney U -test and unpaired t -test were used to investigate the differences between the two groups in the foot characteristics. The Spearman's rho was used to analyze the correlation of FPI with the grades of OA and of WOMAC with the FFI within the OA group. The study included 48 medial knee OA subjects (48 knees and the corresponding foot) and 33 age-, gender-, and BMI-matched healthy controls. The percentages of foot postures (neutral, pronated and highly pronated) of both groups were 71%, 25% and 4% respectively in the OA group and 92%, 2% and 6% respectively in the control group. Comparative study of foot postures between the two groups showed more pronated feet in the OA group ( P < 0.001). Correlation of the FPI scores with the grades of OA showed no association (β = −0.005; P = 0.97) and between WOMAC and the FFI in the knee OA group showed weak association. (β = 0.0349; P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The foot postures were altered in the knee OA group as compared to healthy controls, with the OA group showing more pronated foot type.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.872
Threshold uncertainty score0.603

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysiotherapy - The Journal of Indian Association of PhysiotherapistsSame topicLower Extremity Biomechanics and PathologiesFrench-language works237,207