Effect of Foot Anthropometric Measurements on Pain and Functional Disability of Pregnant and Nonpregnant Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Weight gain during pregnancy, loosening of the foot ligaments with relaxin hormone release, and anthropometric and biomechanical changes can be seen in the foot with the growing fetus. We sought to determine whether these pregnancy-related changes cause painful musculoskeletal problems by altering the proximal structures of the lower extremities and the structure of the spine. METHODS: Both feet of 210 women (half in the third trimester of pregnancy) aged 18 to 40 years with similar demographic characteristics were evaluated by measuring navicular drop, hallux valgus angle, foot width, foot length, and tibiocalcaneal angle. Foot Function Index for foot-ankle, Kujala Patellofemoral Score for knee, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index for hip, Oswestry Disability Index for waist, and Modified Neck Disability Index for neck were used to determine pain and functional limitation. RESULTS: Pain and functional disability in the waist, hip, knee, and foot-ankle joints; navicular drop; hallux valgus angle; and tibiocalcaneal angle were significantly higher in pregnant women versus the control group (P < .001). Pain and dysfunction in all of the joints increased as navicular drop increased in pregnant and nonpregnant women. In addition, the increase in other anthropometric measurements in both groups was determined to caused pain and functional disability in most of the women, especially in foot-ankle joints. However, the cause of joint pain and functional deficiencies was unrelated to pregnancy. CONCLUSIONS: Foot deformities and proximal region complaints were significantly higher in pregnant women, and foot deformities caused more foot-ankle pain and disability in both groups. No difference was observed in pregnant women versus the control group.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".