Bibliographic record
Abstract
The treatment of multiple sclerosis (MS) has become possible with the advent of disease-modifying therapies, but little is known about patients' experiences when faced with a complex array of treatment options. The purpose of this phenomenological study was to explore the lived experience of making a first decision about treatment with disease-modifying therapies for relapsing-remitting MS. Nine participants shared their perspectives on negotiating the decision to accept, refuse, or delay treatment. All individuals described a core theme in which decision making about treatment was part of a process of coming to a "redefined self." This core theme included reflections about self-image, quality of life, goals, and being a person with MS. Six common themes supporting this core theme were (a) weighing and deciding what's important, (b) acknowledging the illness as part of oneself, (c) playing the mental game, (d) seeking credible resources, (e) evaluating symptoms and fit with quality of life, and (f) managing the roles and involvement of family. The findings of this study provide a greater understanding about the experience of making a therapeutic choice for those with MS and offer insights for nurses when supporting patients faced with options about treatment.
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 | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".