Cavus Foot in Soccer Players: Increased Prevalence in Experienced Players and Risk Factor for Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Foot type, especially cavus foot, is associated with foot and ankle soccer injuries, such as ankle sprains, ankle instability, and foot and ankle lateral injuries. The aim of this study was to identify risk factors for foot and ankle injuries among soccer players. METHODS: Male and female soccer players, from beginners to semiprofessionals, aged between 10 and 40 years were enrolled in this cross-sectional study. Players filled in questionnaires about their training and injury history. Clinical measurements included foot length, Foot Posture Index-6, and arch height flexibility. Each variable was dichotomized: age (<18 years versus ≥18 years), level of play (AA and below versus AAA and above), foot type (cavus or not), and injury. Injury occurrence was analyzed using χ2 tests between each group of variables, and significance was set at P < .05. RESULTS: A total of 277 players, including 81 females, volunteered; 147 were younger than 18 years and 180 were AA level or below. Cavus foot prevalence was 30%. In the cavus foot group, 51.8% of players had reached at least an AAA level compared with 27.8% in the normal-arched group (P < .001 [χ2]). Injuries were associated with a cavus foot type (P < .01 [χ2]) and with sex, age, or highest level played (P < .001 [χ2]). CONCLUSIONS: This study identified a high prevalence of cavus foot among soccer players of all ages, with an increased prevalence among higher-level players. The injury risk factors were female sex, older age, playing at a higher level, and cavus feet.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".