Investigating the effect of foot orthotics on dynamic stability in females with pes planus foot posture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Foot orthotics, a device which can modify the mechanical interaction between foot and the external environment, are commonly prescribed for individuals with pes planus foot postures. The purpose of this study was to investigate the role of foot orthotics on controlling dynamic stability when females with pes planus foot posture experience a modified foot placement orientation during walking. RESEARCH QUESTION: Can foot orthotics control dynamic stability when females with pes planus foot posture experience a modified foot placement orientation during walking? METHODS: Kinematic data were collected from eighteen healthy young females (21.8 ± 3.2years) walking in prefabricated foot orthotics under three different stepping orientations (level, inversion, eversion). Outcome measures included gait parameters (step length, width, velocity) and dynamic stability (center of mass-base of support (COM-BOS), medio-lateral center of pressure (ML-COP) and antero-posterior COP (AP-COP)). Results were statistically evaluated with a repeated-measures ANOVA by within-subject factors of foot orthotic and step orientation. The relationship between foot posture index and dynamic stability was evaluated with spearman correlations. RESULTS: Results suggest that changing the orientation of the foot significantly challenges the balance control system, as evidenced by a reduction in step length, increased step width, and increased AP-COP maximums. In orthotics, inverting the foot significantly reduced the COM-BOS range (27.9 mm ± 17.8 mm) and AP COM-COP maximum (265.3 mm ± 26.7 mm), whereas everting the foot increased the AP COM-COP maximum (277.0 mm ± 27.3 mm). SIGNIFICANCE: As the foot becomes more flexible (higher FPI score), the reduction in COM-BOS range suggests an increased balance control resolution when walking in foot orthotics.
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".