Comparison between unilateral and bilateral clubfoot treated with Ponseti method at walking age: static and dynamic assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study evaluated the static, postural, dynamic, and clinical outcomes among five groups of patients: a bilateral CTEV (congenital talipes equinovarus) group treated with tenotomy ( n = 14), bilateral CTEV group treated conservatively ( n = 6), unilateral CTEV group treated with tenotomy ( n = 7), unilateral CTEV group treated conservatively ( n = 3), and control group ( n = 20). Data were collected through baropodometric examinations and clinical evaluations using Pirani, clubfoot assessment protocol, foot and ankle disability index (FADI), and American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society scores. Bilateral CTEV patients treated with tenotomy showed no statistically significant differences compared to healthy controls. Significant differences were found in lateral-lateral variation in the bilateral postural group ( P = 0.002) and in static peak pressure in unilateral tenotomy patients ( P = 0.046). Dynamic comparisons revealed significant differences in mean pressure between unilateral groups ( P = 0.002) and lateral-lateral variation in bilateral groups ( P = 0.004). The Pirani score showed significant differences between tenotomy-treated and postural patients ( P = 0.000). Statistically significant differences in FADI scores were found between bilateral groups ( P = 0.0037), between tenotomy-treated groups ( P = 0.0020), and between the bilateral tenotomy-treated group and the unilateral postural group ( P = 0.021). Bilateral CTEV patients treated with tenotomy develop static and dynamic values comparable to healthy controls. Bilateral patients develop better dynamic values compared to patients with a unilateral variant. Level of evidence: III.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".