A Study to Analyze the Relationship between Body Mass Index, Core Endurance and Flat Foot among College Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Flat foot, a common deformity which is mostly asymptomatic in adults is characterized by collapse of longitudinal medial arch, abduction of the forefoot, internal rotation and calcaneal eversion. Core endurance and Body mass index are two important factors which affect the quality and performance of standing body balance and walking. Aim: The aim of the study is to evaluate the relationship between Body Mass Index, Core endurance and Flat foot among college students. Materials & Methods: 85 students (32 males and 53 females) were selected for the study according to the selection criteria. Body mass index was calculated using Body Mass Index formulae, Core Endurance was assessed using Mc Gill’s core endurance test and Flat foot was assessed using Navicular Drop Test. The overall data was collected and taken for analysis. Results: The Pearson Correlation Coefficient is used to measure the strength of a linear association between two variables. The relationship between the flat foot and body mass index was correlated with an ‘r’ value of 0.53. The relationship between the flat foot and trunk flexor and extensor core endurance was correlated with an ‘r’ value of 0.32 and 0.008. Conclusion: There is a positive relationship between the flat foot and the body mass index, and also positive relationship between the flat foot and trunk flexor and extensor core endurance. Key words: Body Mass Index, Core endurance, Flat foot, Navicular drop test, McGill’s core endurance test.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".