The impact of rehabilitation on the functioning of patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: a pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is a rapidly progressive neurologic disorder during which results in a progressive deterioration of motor function. Rehabilitation is one of the elements of symptomatic treatment in patients with ALS. The aim of the study was to evaluate the impact of rehabilitation on the functioning of ALS patients in terms of daily living activities. Material and methods. Ten ALS patients participated in this pilot study. The study involved completing a questionnaire by the patient. The questionnaire consisted of 5 parts: general information of the patient, the Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Functional Rating Scale (ALSFRS), the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS), the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale — Modified Version (HADS-M) and the part assessing the impact of rehabilitation on the patient’s functioning. Results. Most patients reported that rehabilitation was helping them breathe, reduced pain and improved sleep quality. An improvement in mental state was also observed in most patients. According to the responses provided by the patients, the treatment often led to hardly any or no improvement at all in terms of such activities as: walking, walking up and down the stairs, writing or preparing meals. Conclusions. Rehabilitation should be an element of symptomatic treatment provided to patients with ALS, at least because it has been shown to improve their mental state, although in many cases therapy has very little effect overall. The information provided in this paper may be of value for carers and physiotherapists working with the patients, as it may enable them to increase the effectiveness of their decisions to improve the patients’ comfort 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 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".