The Keystone device as a clinical tool for measuring the supination resistance of the foot: A reliability study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The supination resistance test (SRT) is a kinetic test used in clinical and research contexts to estimate the amount of force required to supinate the foot. Previous studies either used a manual, less reliable version of this test or a more reliable instrumented version, but with devices inconvenient for clinical use. The clinically available Keystone device has been developed for the SRT, and could be better suited for clinical purposes. The objective of this study is to determine the intrarater and interrater reliability of the Keystone device for the SRT. METHOD: Thirty young adults underwent two prospective experimental sessions, 1 week apart, during which SRT measures with the Keystone device were registered. Intrarater and interrater reliability were calculated using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), standard error of measurement (SEM), minimal detectable difference (MDD) and limits of agreements (LoA). RESULTS: The intrarater reliability of the SRT was good (ICC = 0.86, p < 0.001). The SEM, MDD and 95% LoA were 7.3, 20.4 and -31.6-14.3 N, respectively. The interrater reliability of the SRT was good (ICC = 0.76, p < 0.001). The SEM, MDD and 95% LoA were 9.0, 24.9 and -36.6-24.9 N, respectively. CONCLUSION: The Keystone device is a reliable tool that can be used in clinical and research contexts. Prospective studies aiming to determine if SRT measures are predictors of musculoskeletal injuries or if they can predict the effects of external supports on the biomechanics of the foot and ankle are warranted.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it