Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The Coleman block test is a key component of the foot and ankle physical examination in children and adults. This review describes the Coleman block test and summarizes its implications in surgical decision making as well as its limitations. RECENT FINDINGS: The Coleman block test is a classic technique for evaluating whether the hindfoot deformity in a cavovarus foot is flexible or rigid. It involves placing a wooden block underneath the lateral column of the foot to remove the effect of the plantarflexed first ray of the cavus deformity and assessing whether the hindfoot varus subsequently corrects into valgus. When the hindfoot is flexible, only the cavus requires surgical correction. However, if the hindfoot varus is rigid, additional correction is needed, typically a lateral displacement osteotomy of the posterior calcaneus. More recent modifications to the test include radiographic evaluation of the foot while on the block, and a modification for block placement that is particularly useful in children. SUMMARY: The Coleman block test is a simple clinical test should be performed routinely when assessing cavovarus deformities to help devise the most appropriate surgical plan.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".