Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40109938›Full record

ArticleRoyal Society open science2025

Mitigating stress: exploring how our feet change shape with size.

Paige Treherne, Erin C S Lee, Michael J Rainbow, Luke A Kelly

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Royal Society open science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Paige TreherneSchool of Human Movement and Nutrition Science, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4949-5879
Erin C S LeeDepartment of Mechanical and Materials Engineering, Queen's University, Kingston, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2311-1454
Michael J RainbowDepartment of Mechanical and Materials Engineering, Queen's University, Kingston, Canada.
Luke A KellySchool of Human Movement and Nutrition Science, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9736-0517

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

If human skeletal shape increases proportionally with size (isometric scaling), we would expect exponential increases in joint contact stress as individuals become larger. However, if skeletal shape changes as a function of size (allometric scaling), this can mitigate increases in joint contact stress by changing the surface area (SA)-to-volume ratio. Here, we explored whether human foot bones scale with allometry and, if so, to identify the shape features that are associated with bone size. Computed tomography scans of the two largest foot bones (talus, calcaneus) were obtained from 36 healthy individuals. We implemented a scaling analysis for each joint articular surface and bone. We performed a Procrustes ANOVA to establish the shape features associated with bone size. In line with our hypothesis, articular surfaces on the calcaneus scaled with positive allometry relative to bone volume, whereas total bone SA scaled with negative allometry. This indicates that articular surfaces grew at a faster rate than the overall bone SA. Interestingly, the calcaneus appeared more cube-like with increasing size. This may be important for the mitigation of internal bone stresses with increasing skeletal size. Our findings suggest distinct but varied scaling strategies within the foot. This may reflect the requirement to maintain healthy joint contact and internal bone stresses with increasing size.

Indexed as

calcaneusfootmorphologyscalingsubtalar jointtalus

Identifiers

PMID40109938
PMCPMC11919486

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.