Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although there is substantial anecdotal evidence that clutter is common among people with multiple sclerosis (MS), the literature contains no reports of studies on the actual prevalence of the problem or its impact on functional performance in this population. Clutter promotes confusion and places individuals in potentially dangerous situations by increasing their risks of falling, losing medications, and misplacing important documents. In addition, it may negatively affect activities of daily living (ADLs). Many common MS symptoms such as decreased mobility, visual or cognitive changes, fatigue, and depression can exacerbate clutter accumulation, which in turn can have detrimental effects on physical, financial, emotional, cognitive, and social functioning. It is critical for MS clinicians to address clutter management in order to improve patients' overall functional independence and participation. METHODS: A clutter reduction protocol was developed and implemented at our institution for individuals with MS. Our group program addresses psychosocial issues preventing organization and offers practical strategies for clutter removal and management to improve performance in ADLs. A clutter questionnaire is administered to individuals before and after their participation in the group program. RESULTS: Anecdotal reports indicate that the intervention helped to reduce clutter, promote a more realistic attitude toward "possessions," and establish a sense of accomplishment in controlling one's environment. Participants also reported fewer falls, feeling less isolated, increased ease in finding their medications, and a general sense of cognitive clarity in accomplishing ADLs. Outcome assessments are now being developed to objectively measure these effects as well as the prevalence of clutter within the MS population. CONCLUSIONS: Clutter management is an important area for MS clinicians to address because it can significantly affect patients' functioning, safety, performance of ADLs, and 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".