Physical Activity Levels in People with Multiple Sclerosis in Saskatchewan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A substantial body of literature supports the benefits of physical activity for people with multiple sclerosis (MS). This study examined the types and amounts of physical activity reported by a cross-sectional sample of people with MS in Saskatchewan, Canada. Individuals with MS who were seen in the Saskatoon Multiple Sclerosis Clinic in 2006 were mailed a physical activity survey. Demographic information was collected from a confidentiality-protected clinical database. The response rate was 38.2% (108 of 283). No statistically significant differences in baseline demographics were found between responders and nonresponders. Of the responders, 93.5% engaged in some form of moderate physical activity at least once per week. Of these, 15.7% participated in group classes (mean [SD], 2.35 [1.32] days per week), 63.9% performed a minimum of 15 minutes of self-directed continuous activity (mean [SD], 4.5 [1.8] days per week), and 88.0% accumulated short bouts of moderate physical activity totaling a minimum of 20 minutes daily (mean [SD], 5.4 [1.9] days per week). In addition, 28.7% of responders reported that daily self-care required moderate physical effort. Physical activity decreased with increasing disability. The majority of responders participated in regular physical activity when multiple types of activity are considered. All activity sources should be considered when examining activity levels of individuals with MS.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".