Plantar Pressure Distribution in Charcot–Marie–Tooth Disease: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Charcot-Marie-Tooth (CMT) disease is a hereditary motor and sensory neuropathy that affects foot morphology and gait patterns, potentially leading to abnormal plantar pressure distribution. This systematic review synthesizes the existing literature examining plantar pressure characteristics in CMT patients. Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted across PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. Results: Six studies comprising 146 patients were included. Four studies employed dynamic baropodometry, and two used in-shoe pressure sensors to evaluate the main plantar pressure parameters. The findings were consistent across different populations and devices, with a characteristic plantar-pressure profile of marked midfoot off-loading with peripheral overload at the forefoot and rearfoot, often accompanied by a lateralized center-of-pressure path and a prolonged pressure–time exposure. These alterations reflect both structural deformities and impaired neuromuscular control. Interventional studies demonstrated a load redistribution of pressure after corrective surgery, though residual lateral overload often persists. Conclusions: Plantar pressure mapping seems to be a valuable tool to identify high-pressure zones of the foot in order to personalize orthotic treatment planning, to objectively monitor disease progression, and to evaluate therapeutic efficacy. Further longitudinal studies with standardized protocols are needed to confirm these results.
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 | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".