ArticleFrontiers in artificial intelligence2026
Footprint to prediction: low-cost, three-class foot arch screening using a Harris mat.
Article in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 2026. 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.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Arch type foot pathologies of Pes Cavus (high arch), Pes Planus (flatfoot), and Normal Arch patterns are good predictors of foot health that affect gait, posture, and predispose to musculoskeletal disorders. The research work described herein advances a computer-assisted automated classification of the foot arch from footprint images obtained on the Harris mat and transformed into contact-area visualizations through image processing, then classified using machine learning approaches, including a Convolutional Neural Network (CNN)-based model with MobileNetV2 and a Support Vector Machine (SVM) baseline for comparison. The system's performance was validated on a dataset of 106 footprint impressions collected from 53 healthy young university students. The training set was subsequently augmented to 300 images, while evaluation was performed on 22 held-out original (non-augmented) images. The total accuracy for the CNN model was 77.3%, with an F1-score by class of 0.78 for Pes Cavus, 0.92 for Pes Planus, and 0.62 for Normal Arch. Precision values were 0.70 (Pes Cavus), 0.86 (Pes Planus), and 0.80 (Normal Arch), and recall values were 0.88, 1.00, and 0.50, respectively. The SVM model had an accuracy of 54.6%. Cohen's Kappa of 0.658 indicated substantial agreement between model predictions and reference labels, and ROC analysis showed promising classification performance within the evaluated dataset, with AUC estimates of 0.848 for Pes Cavus, 0.990 for Pes Planus, and 0.830 for Normal Arch.
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.