MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390120547 · doi:10.1186/s13047-023-00681-5

Supination resistance variations in foot and ankle musculoskeletal disorders: implications for diagnosis and customised interventions with wedged insoles

2023· article· en· W4390120547 on OpenAlex
Gabriel Moisan, Dominic Chicoine, Sean McBride, Nader Farahpour, Pier‐Luc Isabelle, Camille Dagenais, Ian Griffiths

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Foot and Ankle Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLower Extremity Biomechanics and Pathologies
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
FundersUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
KeywordsMedicineAnkleValgusFoot (prosody)Subtalar jointPhysical therapyOrthodonticsPhysical medicine and rehabilitationAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Supination resistance is a clinical outcome that estimates the amount of external force required to supinate the foot. A greater supination resistance may indicate greater loads on structures responsible for generating internal supination moments across the subtalar joint during static and dynamic tasks. As such, greater supination resistance may be an expected finding in medial foot and ankle musculoskeletal disorders, such as plantar fasciopathy (PF) and posterior tibial tendon dysfunction (PTTD), whereas reduced supination resistance may be present in lateral ankle disorders, such as chronic ankle instability (CAI). However, no studies have yet investigated the changes in supination resistance across these foot and ankle musculoskeletal disorders. This study aimed to quantify supination resistance in individuals with PF, PTTD and CAI compared to healthy controls. Additionally, this study aimed to explore the changes in supination resistance following the simulation of varus and valgus wedges, which are commonly used interventions for these disorders. METHODS: Fourteen participants with PF, fourteen with PTTD, fourteen with CAI and fourteen healthy controls were recruited. Supination resistance was quantified on a level surface and on a 10-degree inclined surface with varus and valgus positions. RESULTS: Supination resistance was lower for the injured foot for CAI (p < 0.001) and greater for PTTD (p < 0.001) compared to the healthy foot. There was no significant between-foot difference observed for PF (p = 0.275) and controls (p = 0.970). In the injured foot, CAI exhibited lower supination resistance compared to controls (p < 0.001), PF (p = 0.012) and PTTD (p = 0.014). Regardless of the groups, supination resistance increased when tested on a surface with valgus inclination (p < 0.001) and decreased when tested on a surface with varus inclination (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Varus and valgus inclinations to the surface were effective in modifying supination resistance in PTTD and CAI, respectively. Supination resistance seemed unchanged in PF, and thus inclining the standing surface leads to greater between-feet asymmetries. This study also highlights the potential of wedged insoles as a mean to customise treatments and modify tissue stresses in these disorders. The findings contribute to the understanding of foot and ankle biomechanics and may aid in the development of more effective management and rehabilitation strategies.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.636
Threshold uncertainty score0.250

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.073
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.293 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it