MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2100045963 · doi:10.7717/peerj.1158

Predictors of exercise participation in ambulatory and non-ambulatory older people with multiple sclerosis

2015· article· en· W2100045963 on OpenAlexafffund
Michelle Ploughman, Chelsea Harris, Elizabeth M. Wallack, Olivia Drodge, Serge Beaulieu, Nancy E. Mayo

Bibliographic record

VenuePeerJ · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies
Canadian institutionsSt. John’s Health Sciences CentreMcGill UniversityMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchEMD SeronoPublic Health AgencyHealth CanadaMultiple Sclerosis SocietyMultiple Sclerosis Society of CanadaUniversity of AlbertaBiogenSaskatoon City Hospital FoundationNewfoundland and Labrador Centre for Applied Health ResearchPhysiotherapy Foundation of CanadaMultiple Sclerosis Scientific Research FoundationArnold P. Gold FoundationTeva Pharmaceutical IndustriesPublic Health Agency of CanadaBayer HealthCareSanofi
KeywordsMedicineAmbulatoryPhysical therapyLogistic regressionQuartileExpanded Disability Status ScaleGuidelineSocioeconomic statusGerontologyDemographyConfidence intervalMultiple sclerosisInternal medicinePopulationEnvironmental healthPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background. Exercise at moderate intensity may confer neuroprotective benefits in multiple sclerosis (MS), however it has been reported that people with MS (PwMS) exercise less than national guideline recommendations. We aimed to determine predictors of moderate to vigorous exercise among a sample of older Canadians with MS who were divided into ambulatory (less disabled) and non-ambulatory (more disabled) groups. Methods. We analysed data collected as part of a national survey of health, lifestyle and aging with MS. Participants (n = 743) were Canadians over 55 years of age with MS for 20 or more years. We identified 'a priori' variables (demographic, personal, socioeconomic, physical health, exercise history and health care support) that may predict exercise at moderate to vigorous intensity (>6.75 metabolic equivalent hours/week). Predictive variables were entered into stepwise logistic regression until best fit was achieved. Results. There was no difference in explanatory models between ambulatory and non-ambulatory groups. The model predicting exercise included the ability to walk independently (OR 1.90, 95% CI [1.24-2.91]); low disability (OR 1.50, 95% CI [1.34-1.68] for each 10 point difference in Barthel Index score), perseverance (OR 1.17, 95% CI [1.08-1.26] for each additional point on the scale of 0-14), less fatigue (OR 2.01, 95% CI [1.32-3.07] for those in the lowest quartile), fewer years since MS diagnosis (OR 1.58, 95% CI [1.11-2.23] below the median of 23 years) and fewer cardiovascular comorbidities (OR 1.55 95% CI [1.02-2.35] one or no comorbidities). It was also notable that the factors, age, gender, social support, health care support and financial status were not predictive of exercise. Conclusions. This is the first examination of exercise and exercise predictors among older, more disabled PwMS. Disability is a major predictor of exercise participation (at moderate to vigorous levels) in both ambulatory and non-ambulatory groups suggesting that more exercise options must be developed for people with greater disability. Perseverance, fatigue, and cardiovascular comorbidities are predictors that are modifiable and potential targets for exercise adherence interventions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.491
Threshold uncertainty score0.975

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.056
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.247 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations39
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePeerJSame topicMultiple Sclerosis Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207