P02.169. The effects of massage therapy on Multiple Sclerosis patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Twenty-four MS patients with scores ranging from 3.0 to 7.0 on the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) received four weeks of Swedish massage treatments. The Six-Minute-Walk-Test (6MWT) was used to assess their exercise capacity and leg function and the Hamburg Quality of Life in MS (HAQUAMS) instrument was used to assess changes in client QoL. These assessments were measured before and after a massage period and a rest period where no massages were employed. The results displayed no significant changes in 6MWT distances or HAQUAMS scores after massage or rest periods. However, clients’ personal health rating improved after massage and deteriorated when massages were removed. Client comments collected at the end of the study supported this change. The improvement in patient perception could have been due to an analgesic effect of massage that decreases pain. In addition, the relaxation induced by massage is very beneficial in stress management and thus symptom management for MS individuals. Although the results from this study display a limited significant change after massage treatments, it is important to note that no harm was being done. Thus, massage is a safe, non-invasive supplementary treatment option that may assist MS patients to manage the stress of their symptoms and improve quality of life.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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".