Immediate Impacts of Two Foot Orthotic Designs on Foot Posture Index, Gait, and Comfort in Adults With Asymptomatic, Flexible Pes Planus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Introduction Flexible flatfeet are commonly treated with functional foot orthoses (FFOs) and University of California Berkeley Laboratory (UCBL) designs. This study sought to evaluate the immediate effects of low-profile FFOs and high-profile UCBL orthoses on Foot Posture Index (FPI), spatiotemportal measures of gait, and perceived comfort and compliance in adults with flexible flatfeet. Materials and Methods Fourteen individuals with self-reported asymptomatic flexible flatfeet participated in this randomized cross-sectional study. Custom FFOs and UCBL orthoses were fabricated for each participant, who then walked at a self-selected speed in each condition on a Zeno Mat. Foot Posture Index, perceived comfort and compliance, and spatiotemporal parameters were collected across conditions. Results There were no significant differences in velocity, cadence, step length, stride width, toe-in/toe-out, or stance center of pressure distance percentage. Stance phase duration significantly increased from baseline to UCBL condition. There was a statistically significant decrease bilaterally in FPI from baseline to FFO and from baseline to UCBL orthosis, but not between FFO and UCBL orthosis. There were no significant differences in comfort and compliance ratings between FFOs and UCBL orthoses. Conclusions With regard to immediate effects, both the UCBL and FFO designs improve foot posture without significant impact on spatiotemporal gait patterns or perceived comfort and compliance. Additional research is needed to determine the longevity of these effects. Clinical Relevance The results of this study support the use of both FFOs and UCBL orthoses when trying to provide foot posture correction for adults with asymptomatic flexible flatfeet.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".