The prevalence and nature of modified housing and assistive devices use among Americans with multiple sclerosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Multiple sclerosis (MS) is frequently associated with symptoms that lead to mobility restriction and functional limitations, and for many this results in an altered capacity to safely and independently function within their residence. Although assistive technology devices and residential modifications can significantly ameliorate the impact of limited mobility, little is known about their use and prevalence in the US. This article presents the first national assessment of the prevalence of residential assistive devices and modifications among Americans with MS. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study were to evaluate the prevalence of, and level of need for, housing modifications and devices among Americans with MS, the typical means of payment for these adaptations, and the demographic and clinical characteristics associated with their possession. METHODS: In order to achieve a representative national survey, a sample of 5082 adults with MS was randomly selected from the membership of the North American Research Committee on Multiple Sclerosis patient registry and selected chapters of the National Multiple Sclerosis Society in states in which the NARCOMS registry had lower representation. RESULTS: A relatively small number of changes made up the majority of the modifications and devices that people used or reported needing. Five of the six most prevalent modifications involved the bathroom. Changes to promote accessibility were primarily paid for the person with MS. Generally, people who reported greater degrees of mobility limitation or disability had an increased likelihood of having made housing modifications. CONCLUSION: Continued attention to the issue of accessible housing for Americans with MS is necessary, and there remains a significant and frequently unmet need for accessibility modifications and devices.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".