Effects of prefabricated and custom foot orthoses on the biomechanics of the lower limbs of individuals with a posterior tibialis tendon dysfunction during stair climbing.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Posterior tibialis tendon dysfunction is a chronic musculoskeletal disorder characterized by a progressive flatfoot deformity which negatively impacts health-related quality of life. Custom foot orthoses modify walking biomechanics in individuals with posterior tibialis tendon dysfunction, but no studies have investigated their effects on stair climbing biomechanics in this population. This cross-sectional study aimed to compare the effects of prefabricated foot orthoses and two models of custom foot orthoses on the biomechanics of individuals with posterior tibialis tendon dysfunction during stair climbing. METHODS: Fourteen individuals with painful posterior tibialis tendon dysfunction were recruited to undertake a stair climbing task under four experimental conditions: shoes alone, prefabricated foot orthoses, neutral custom foot orthoses and custom varus foot orthoses with a 5° medial wedge and a 4 mm medial heel skive. Hip, knee, ankle and foot angles and moments were compared between conditions, using one-dimensional statistical non-parametric mapping. FINDINGS: Forefoot dorsiflexion was decreased for neutral custom foot orthoses compared to shoes (P < 0.001). Both custom foot orthoses decreased hindfoot eversion compared to shoes (P < 0.001). Greater ankle eversion moments were observed for both custom foot orthoses compared to shoes (P < 0.001) and prefabricated foot orthoses (neutral custom: P < 0.001). INTERPRETATION: Neutral custom and custom varus foot orthoses seem appropriate to attenuate biomechanical deficits in individuals with posterior tibialis tendon dysfunction. Longer-term effects of foot orthoses on lower limb biomechanics and clinical meaningfulness of these changes remain to be determined.
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 | 0.000 | 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".