The relationship between the supination resistance test, lower limb biomechanics and the effects of foot orthoses on foot and ankle biomechanics in individuals with posterior tibialis tendon dysfunction during gait
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Posterior tibialis tendon dysfunction (PTTD) is a debilitating condition that leads to biomechanical changes, for which foot orthoses are often prescribed to attenuate. There is a need to improve the ability to predict these biomechanical alterations, determine the biomechanical effectiveness of foot orthoses, and anticipate their effects on individuals with PTTD during gait. RESEARCH QUESTION: Is the supination resistance test (SRT) reliable, and capable of predicting foot and ankle biomechanics, as well as the biomechanical effects of foot orthoses in individuals with PTTD during gait? METHODS: Twenty-one individuals with PTTD participated with supination resistance measured over two sessions. Midfoot and ankle angles, and moments, were analyzed during gait. SRT test-retest reliability was evaluated, and the biomechanical effects of foot orthoses were assessed using statistical parametric mapping. SRT correlations with foot and ankle biomechanics and foot orthoses effects were examined. RESULTS: The SRT demonstrated excellent intrarater reliability. Positive correlations were noted between the SRT and midfoot sagittal and frontal angles, while a negative correlation was observed with ankle sagittal and frontal angles. In the foot orthoses condition, midfoot dorsiflexion, external rotation, ankle eversion angles, and inversion moments were reduced. A negative correlation was identified between SRT and foot orthoses effects on the ankle frontal angle. SIGNIFICANCE: The SRT is useful for predicting foot and ankle biomechanics, as well as the effects of foot orthoses on ankle frontal angles during gait in individuals with PTTD. These findings emphasize the clinical and research relevance of assessing supination resistance in PTTD management.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".