A randomized, controlled, single-blind, 6-month pilot study to evaluate the efficacy of MS-Line!: a cognitive rehabilitation programme for patients with multiple sclerosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: MS-Line! was created to provide an effective treatment for cognitive impairment in multiple sclerosis (MS) patients. OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of MS-Line!. METHODS: A randomized, controlled, single-blind, 6-month pilot study. Patients were randomly assigned to an experimental group (cognitive rehabilitation with the programme) or to a control group (no cognitive rehabilitation). Randomization was stratified by cognitive impairment level. Cognitive assessment included: selective reminding test, 10/36 spatial recall test (10/36 SPART), symbol digit modalities test, paced auditory serial addition test, word list generation (WLG), FAS test, subtests of WAIS-III, Boston naming test (BNT), and trail making test (TMT). RESULTS: Forty-three patients (22 in the experimental group, 21 in the control group) were analyzed. Covariance analysis showed significant differences in 10/36 SPART (P=0.0002), 10/36 SPART delayed recall (P=0.0021), WLG (P=0.0123), LNS (P=0.0413), BNT (P=0.0007) and TMT-A (P=0.010) scores between groups. CONCLUSIONS: The study showed a significant improvement related to learning and visual memory, executive functions, attention and information processing speed, and naming ability in those patients who received cognitive rehabilitation. The results suggest that MS-Line! is effective in improving cognitive impairment in MS patients.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".