Offloading Plantar Pressures in Healthy Adults: Stirrup Cast vs Total Contact Cast
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Diabetic foot ulcers are associated with significant morbidity and mortality while posing a challenge for healthcare professionals. Offloading is considered the mainstay of treatment. Total contact casting (TCC) is widely used but does not effectively offload the hindfoot. Some studies suggest that a metal stirrup is effective at offloading midfoot and hindfoot ulcers. The primary purpose of this study is to compare the offloading mechanism of TCC to a stirrup cast. Methods: A pilot observational study assessing 12 healthy volunteers who underwent casting with a TCC or stirrup cast. A sensor (Pedar; Novel GmbH) that measures maximum force, peak pressure, and contact time and area of each foot region, was placed inside the cast to assess the offloading mechanisms of the 2 interventions. Results: We measured a reduction in all plantar foot loading parameters from the TCC to the stirrup cast. The highest reductions of 85% to 96% (±5%-13%) were noted in maximum force and peak pressure under the forefoot ( P < .0001) and found reductions in maximum force, the contact area of all regions of the foot, peak pressure and contact time of the forefoot and midfoot, and contact area of the hindfoot ( P < .05). Conclusion: In this experimental trial of healthy adults, the stirrup cast was more effective than the TCC by offloading the foot mostly in the forefoot and midfoot.
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) | 0.003 | 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".