First metatarsophalangeal joint dorsiflexion resistance in individuals with plantar fasciopathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Plantar fasciopathy is a common foot-related musculoskeletal disorder. It has been hypothesized that this disorder could be linked to a dysfunctional windlass mechanism. However, no study to date has quantified this link to validate or refute this hypothesis. The first metatarsophalangeal joint (1st MPJ) dorsiflexion resistance test is a reliable test to evaluate the force required to initiate the windlass mechanism. Comparing the results of this test in individuals with and without plantar fasciopathy will allow for a better understanding of the relationship between plantar fasciopathy and the windlass mechanism. Thus, this study aimed to compare 1st MPJ dorsiflexion resistance in individuals with plantar fasciopathy and healthy controls. Additionally, this study aimed to explore the correlations between 1st MPJ dorsiflexion resistance and other commonly used foot orthopedic tests, specifically the supination resistance test and the Foot Posture Index. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty participants with plantar fasciopathy and 20 healthy controls were recruited in this case-control study. First MPJ dorsiflexion resistance was quantified and compared between groups and between feet using a repeated measures ANOVA with one within-subject factor with two levels and one between-subject factor with two levels. It was also correlated with supination resistance and the Foot Posture Index. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in 1st MPJ dorsiflexion resistance between injured and healthy feet as well as control and plantar fasciopathy groups. There was a moderate to strong correlation (r = 0.674 to 0.891) between 1st MPJ dorsiflexion resistance and supination resistance in both groups. There was no significant correlation between 1st MPJ dorsiflexion resistance and the Foot Posture Index. CONCLUSIONS: The lack of alterations in 1st MPJ dorsiflexion resistance among individuals with plantar fasciopathy implies a potential need to reconsider the biomechanical model, proposing that a dysfunctional windlass mechanism is associated with the development of plantar fasciopathy, may need reconsideration.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".