Effect of Foot and Ankle Position on Tarsal Tunnel Compartment Volume
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Tarsal tunnel pressure is increased when the foot and ankle are positioned in eversion or inversion from neutral, aggravating symptoms of tarsal tunnel syndrome in some patients. Space-occupying lesions may cause tarsal tunnel syndrome. We hypothesized that positional change of the foot and ankle from neutral to eversion or inversion causes decreased tarsal tunnel compartment volume that may aggravate symptoms of posterior tibial nerve entrapment. Methods: MRI of 13 ankles in nine healthy subjects in three positions (neutral, eversion, inversion) were obtained with respect to the malleolar-calcaneal plane; this plane was defined by the distal tip of the anterior colliculus of the medial malleolus, the medial tubercle of the posterior calcaneal tuberosity, and the lateral tubercle of the posterior calcaneal tuberosity. The borders of the tarsal tunnel noted on the MRI were traced with a computer digitizing apparatus to determine the cross-sectional area of the tarsal tunnel on each image, and the slice thickness and interspace distance for the seven central images were used to calculate tarsal tunnel volume. Results: The mean tarsal tunnel volume was significantly greater when the foot and ankle were in neutral position (21.5 ± 0.9 cm3) than in either full eversion (18.0 ± 0.9 cm3; p ≤ 0.001) or inversion (20.3 ± 1.0 cm3; p ≤ 0.001). Conclusions: The results support the hypothesis that eversion and inversion of the foot and ankle cause decreased compartment volume of the tarsal tunnel and increased tarsal tunnel pressure that may contribute to symptoms of posterior tibial nerve entrapment in tarsal tunnel syndrome. Clinical relevance: Neutral immobilization of the foot and ankle may relieve symptoms of posterior tibial nerve entrapment in tarsal tunnel syndrome by minimizing pressure on the nerve and maximizing tarsal tunnel compartment volume available for the nerve.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".