Foot Posture, Foot Function, and Balance in Patients With Nonspecific Low-Back Pain and Knee Osteoarthritis: A Cross-Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study examined the influence of foot posture and balance function in individuals with knee osteoarthritis (KOA) and nonspecific low-back pain (LBP). METHODS: This study included participants aged 40 to 65 years categorized into three groups: nonspecific LBP (n = 44), KOA (n = 43), and healthy controls (n = 45). Demographic data were collected and disability levels were assessed using the Oswestry Disability Index for LBP and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) for KOA. Foot posture was evaluated using the Foot Posture Index 6 (FPI-6) and navicular drop test, whereas balance was quantified using the Y Balance Test. RESULTS: Analysis of the FPI-6 scores on the dominant side revealed significant differences between the LBP and healthy control groups (P = .008) and between the LBP and KOA groups (P = .005). The Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire (MOXFQ) scores also showed significant differences between the KOA and healthy control groups (P = .022) and between the LBP and healthy control groups (P = .038). Overall, significant differences were observed among all groups in both FPI-6 (P = .006) and MOXFQ (P = .033) scores. The results of the multiple linear regression models indicated that MOXFQ scores significantly predicted the Oswestry Disability Index, with an R2 of 0.283 (P = .04), whereas WOMAC and FPI-6 scores were significant predictors of the WOMAC score, with an R2 of 0.078 (P = .04). CONCLUSIONS: This study revealed distinct impairments in foot function and posture in KOA and LBP patients. Foot function was compromised in both groups, with more pronounced foot posture changes in the KOA group, whereas balance remained unaffected. Foot function was linked to disability in LBP and foot posture to disability in KOA. These findings highlight the importance of targeted foot assessment in KOA and LBP rehabilitation.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".