MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412195273 · doi:10.3390/s25144312

Plantar Pressure Distribution in Charcot–Marie–Tooth Disease: A Systematic Review

2025· review· en· W4412195273 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alberto Arceri, Antonio Mazzotti, Federico Sgubbi, Simone Ottavio Zielli, Laura Langone, Gianmarco Di Paola, Lorenzo Brognara, Cesare Faldini

Bibliographic record

VenueSensors · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHereditary Neurological Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForefootPlantar pressureMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationTooth diseaseCenter of pressure (fluid mechanics)Foot OrthosesGaitDiseasePhysical therapySurgeryInternal medicinePressure sensorComplication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.478
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.275 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSensorsSame topicHereditary Neurological DisordersFrench-language works237,207