A Study on the Effects of Lateral-Wedge Insoles on Plantar-Pressure Pattern for Medial Knee Osteoarthritis Using the Wearable Sensing Insole
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patients with knee osteoarthritis have a unique plantar-pressure pattern during walking, and lateral-wedge insoles are one of the treatment options. Participants were randomly assigned to either the lateral-wedge insole group or the ordinary insole group. The Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and plantar-pressure test scores were evaluated at the baseline and at 20 weeks. Plantar pressure data were collected using a pressure insole with 89 sensing locations. In the ordinary insole group, the function and total WOMAC scores decreased significantly (function score, 24.8 (baseline) to 16.5 (week 20); total score, 34.9 (baseline) to 24.6 (week 20)). During walking, the transverse width of the center of pressure as a percentage of foot width (%Trans) significantly increased in the ordinary insole group (baseline, 6.3%; week 20, 14.8%). In addition, the values of partial foot pressure as a percentage of body weight (%PFP) on the forefoot (baseline, 30.3%; week 20, 39.2%) and heel (baseline, 28.1%; week 20, 16.9%) also increased significantly in the ordinary insole group. Significant group-by-time interaction effects were observed for partial foot pressure per body weight in the forefoot (p = 0.031) and heel (p = 0.024). In the ordinary insole group, the plantar pressure on the heel significantly decreased (p = 0.011) and that on the forefoot significantly increased (p = 0.023). In contrast, plantar pressure remained stable in all regions in the lateral-wedge insole group. Thus, lateral-wedge insoles may protect against plantar pressure deterioration in patients with knee osteoarthritis.
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".