A comparison of different over-the-counter foot orthotic devices on multi-segment foot biomechanics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Over-the-counter foot orthoses are a cost-effective alternative to custom-made devices. However, few studies have compared over-the-counter devices and most biomechanical research involving orthoses has focused on rearfoot biomechanics. OBJECTIVES: To determine changes in multi-segment foot biomechanics during shod walking in three commercially available over-the-counter devices: SOLE, SuperFeet and Powerstep when compared to no orthotic. STUDY DESIGN: Repeated measures, cross-sectional study. METHODS: Retroreflective markers were placed on the right limb of 18 participants representing forefoot, midfoot, rearfoot and shank segments. Three-dimensional kinematics were recorded using an eight-camera motion capture system while participants walked on a treadmill and the order of condition was randomized between four conditions: SOLE, SuperFeet, Powerstep and no orthotic. RESULTS: All over-the-counter devices exhibited significant decreases in plantar fascia strain compared to no orthotic and only Powerstep exhibited significant decreases in peak rearfoot eversion. Medial longitudinal arch deformation was not reduced for any over-the-counter device. CONCLUSION: Different over-the-counter devices exhibited specific alterations in rearfoot kinematics and all reduced plantar fascia strain by varying amounts. These over-the-counter-specific kinematic changes should be taken into consideration when recommending these devices as a treatment option. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Over-the-counter orthoses are a cost-effective alternative to custom-made devices. We demonstrated that three commonly used over-the-counter devices influence foot kinematics and plantar fascia strain differently. Clinicians can use these results to provide more tailored treatment options for their patients.
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".