Effect of using a kinetic wedge during the hallux dorsiflexion resistance test in asymptomatic individuals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The hallux dorsiflexion resistance test is a frequently employed clinical maneuver for assessing the initiation of the windlass mechanism This maneuver involves dorsiflexion of the phalanx of the hallux, thereby evaluating plantarflexion of the first metatarsal, elevation of the medial longitudinal arch, and supination of the rearfoot. The windlass mechanism plays a crucial role in gait, and orthopedic devices, such as a kinetic wedge, which aims to facilitate its activation by increasing the hallux dorsiflexion. Although it is believed that facilitating the windlass mechanism with the kinetic wedge should be directly correlated with a decrease in hallux dorsiflexion resistance, its effects have yet to be characterized. Thus, this study aimed to determine the influence of a kinetic wedge on hallux dorsiflexion resistance in asymptomatic individuals. METHODS: The sample comprised thirty participants (14 women and 16 men). A digital force gauge measured the force required to perform the hallux dorsiflexion resistance test during two conditions: barefoot and with a kinetic wedge. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare the hallux dorsiflexion resistance between conditions. RESULTS: A statistically significant reduction in force (10.54 ± 3.16N vs. 19.62 ± 5.18N, p < 0.001) was observed when using the kinetic wedge compared to the barefoot condition during the hallux dorsiflexion resistance test. CONCLUSION: The use of a kinetic wedge reduces the required force for performing the passive hallux dorsiflexion resistance test in asymptomatic individuals. Future studies should determine to what extent the kinetic wedge can attenuate the required force to dorsiflex the hallux in individuals with musculoskeletal disorders such as plantar fasciopathy and functional hallux limitus.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".