Can a rigid antipronation foot orthosis change the effects of prolonged standing on postural control in men with patellofemoral pain?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pronated foot posture is known as a contributing factor for patellofemoral pain (PFP) development. Patients with patellofemoral pain often experience poor postural control. Implementation of optimal management strategies for enhancing their postural performance is important. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine whether a rigid antipronation foot orthosis changes prolonged standing effects on postural control in men with PFP. STUDY DESIGN: Case-control study. METHODS: Twenty-eight men with PFP and pronated foot and 28 healthy men were enrolled in this study. Center-of-pressure parameters were measured during short trials (60 seconds) of single-leg standing before and immediately after prolonged standing (20 minutes) using force platform. In patients with PFP, postural control was examined on 2 separate days with and without rigid antipronation foot orthosis. RESULTS: Findings showed that the pre-post differences of sway area (t(48) = -2.22, p = 0.03), mediolateral (ML) displacement (t (48) = -2.51, p = 0.01), and mean velocity (t(48) = -2.01, p = 0.04) were significantly greater in patients with PFP without foot orthosis compared with those in the healthy group. Significant intervention main effect ( p = 0.04) and time-by-intervention interaction ( p = 0.006) for sway area were shown. Significant intervention main effects were noted for ML displacement ( p = 0.007) and mean velocity ( p = 0.003). For these variables, significant time-by-intervention interactions were found. Further analysis showed greater values of ML displacement and mean velocity parameters before the prolonged standing in patients with PFP without foot orthosis compared with patients with PFP with orthosis. CONCLUSIONS: Rigid antipronation foot orthosis can improve the postural performance after prolonged standing in young adult men with PFP.
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".