Comparison of subtalar angle, Q angle, trunk endurance and physical performance in individuals with pes planus and controls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: Pes planus is a health problem that develops due to the decrease in the height of the medial longitudinal arch (MLA) and affects the individual negatively in daily life by causing changes in the foot and trunk alignment. This study aimed to compare subtalar angle, Q angle, trunk endurance, and physical performance in individuals with pes planus and controls. Materials and Methods: Volunteers who did not have any history of surgery related to the lower extremities between the ages of 18-35 were divided into two groups as pes planus and control group. A total of 57 people, 28 from the pes planus group and 29 from the control group were included in the study. Subtalar Angle and Q Angle was determined with universal goniometer, Mcgill Trunk Flexion, Extension and Lateral Bridge Test was used to evaluate trunk endurance, and Xbox 360Kinect™ game console was used to evaluate physical performance. Results: The left subtalar angle was higher in individuals with pes planus (p<0.05). The groups were found to be similar in terms of right and left Q angles (p>0.05). There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of trunk endurance values (p>0.05). Discus throw distances of individuals with pes planus were higher than healthy controls (p<0.05). There was no significant difference physical performances (p>0.05). Conclusion: Pes planus can negatively affect individuals in terms of subtalar angle and physical performance. Therefore, individuals with pes planus should be evaluated in terms of subtalar angle and physical performance during the rehabilitation process.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".