Tibial torsion and pressures in the feet during walking: Implications for patterns of metatarsal robusticity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The Dmanisi Homo fossils include a tibia with a low degree of torsion and metatarsals with a pattern of robusticity differing from modern humans. It has been proposed that low tibial torsion would cause a low foot progression angle (FPA) in walking, and consequently increased force applied to the medial rays. This could explain the more robust MT III and IV from Dmanisi. Here we experimentally tested these hypothesized biomechanical relationships in living human subjects. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We measured transmalleolar axis (TMA, a proxy for tibial torsion), FPA, and plantar pressure distributions during walking in young men (n = 40). TMA was measured externally using a newly developed method. A pressure mat recorded FPA and pressure under the metatarsal heads (MT I vs. MT II-IV vs. MT V). RESULTS: TMA is positively correlated with FPA, but only in the right foot. Plantar pressure under MT II-IV does increase with lower TMA, as predicted, but FPA does not affect pressure. Body mass index also influenced plantar pressure distribution. DISCUSSION: Lower tibial torsion in humans is associated with slightly increased pressures along the middle rays of the foot during walking, but not because of changes in FPA. Therefore, it is possible that the low degree of torsion in the Dmanisi Homo tibia is related to the unusual pattern of robusticity in the associated metatarsals, but the mechanism behind this relationship is unclear. Future work will explore TMA, FPA, and plantar pressures during running.
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".