ArticleGait & posture2024
A method for automated masking and plantar pressure analysis using segmented computed tomography scans.
Article in Gait & posture, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPlantar pressure, a common gait and foot biomechanics measurement, is typically analyzed using proprietary commercial software packages. Regional plantar pressure analysis is often reported in terms of underlying bony geometry, and recent advances in image processing and accessibility have made computed tomography, radiographs, magnetic resonance imaging, or other imaging methods more popular for incorporating bone analyses in biomechanics. RESEARCH QUESTION: Can a computed tomography-based regional mask provide comparable regional analysis to commercial plantar pressure software and can the increased flexibility of an in-house method obtain additional insight from common measurements?
methodsA plantar pressure analysis method was developed based on bony geometry from computed tomography scans to calculate peak pressure, pressure time integral incorporating sub-peak values, force time integral, pressure gradient, and pressure gradient angle. Static and dynamic plantar pressure were acquired for 4 subjects (male, 65 ± 2.4 years). Plantar pressure variables were calculated using commercial and computed tomography-based systems.
resultsDynamic peak pressure, pressure time integral, and force-time integral computed using the bone-based software was 5 % (9kPa), 7 % (0.3kPa-s) and 13 % (0.3 N-s) different than the commercial software on average. Region masks of the metatarsals and toes differed between commercial and computed tomography-based software due to subject-specific bone geometry and toe shape. Pressure time integral values incorporating sub-peak pressure were higher and demonstrated higher relative hindfoot values compared to those without. Removing step-on frames to static pressure analysis decreased forefoot pressures. Regional maps of peak pressure and maximum pressure gradient demonstrate different peak locations. SIGNIFICANCE: Computed tomography-based regional masks are comparable to commercial masks. Inclusion of static step-on frames and sub-peak pressures may change regional plantar pressure patterns. Differences in location of maximum pressure gradient and peak pressure may be useful for assessing subject specific injury risk.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.