Altered Foot Progression Angle and Rearfoot Loading in Patellofemoral and Tibiofemoral Osteoarthritis: A Comparative Cross-Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to investigate the differences in plantar loading distribution and functional levels between patellofemoral osteoarthritis (PFOA) and tibiofemoral osteoarthritis (TFOA) patients, and to compare them with healthy individuals. METHODS: Sixty patients with knee osteoarthritis and 30 age-matched, healthy individuals (control group) were included in the study. The patients were divided into two groups, the PFOA group (n = 31) and the TFOA group (n = 29), based on the Kellgren Lawrence classification system. The maximum foot pressure of the foot (FPmax), forefoot weight ratio, rearfoot weight ratio, total load on foot, and foot progression angle (FPA) were determined by pedobarographic analysis. Functional level was assessed with the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). RESULTS: There was a significant difference in FPA (F(2,79) = 22.322, P < .001) and rearfoot weight ratio (F(2,77) = 7.694, P = .001) among the groups. The FPA in the PFOA group was lower than in the TFOA group (P <. 001). The rearfoot weight ratio was higher in the PFOA group than in the TFOA group (P <. 05). No significant difference was found in FPmax (P = .457), forefoot weight ratio (P = .183), and total load on the foot (P = .226) among the groups. Also, no difference was found in the WOMAC total score and subscales between the PFAO and TFAO groups (P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that the FPA and rearfoot loading were altered in patients with PFOA compared to those with TFOA and healthy individuals. Clinicians need to consider the effect of altered foot position and loading on the knee biomechanics in their treatment approach regarding foot orthoses or gait modification in patients with PFOA.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".