A randomized controlled trial of resistance exercise in individuals with ALS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects of resistance exercise on function, fatigue, and quality of life in individuals with ALS. METHODS: Subjects with a diagnosis of clinically definite, probable, or laboratory-supported ALS, forced vital capacity (FVC) of 90% predicted or greater, and an ALS Functional Rating Scale (ALSFRS) score of 30 or greater were randomly assigned to a resistance exercise group that received a home exercise program consisting of daily stretching and resistance exercises three times weekly or to a usual care group, who performed only the daily stretching exercises. ALSFRS, the Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS), and Short Form-36 (SF-36) were completed at baseline and monthly for 6 months. FVC and maximum voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) were monitored monthly throughout the study. RESULTS: Of 33 subjects screened, 27 were randomly assigned (resistance = 13; usual care = 14). Eight resistance exercise subjects and 10 usual care subjects completed the trial. At 6 months, the resistance exercise group had significantly higher ALSFRS and SF-36 physical function subscale scores. No adverse events related to the intervention occurred, MVIC and FVC indicated no negative effects, and less decline in leg strength measured by MVIC was found in the resistance exercise group. CONCLUSION: Our study, although small, showed that the resistance exercise group had significantly better function, as measured by total ALS Functional Rating Scale and upper and lower extremity subscale scores, and quality of life without adverse effects as compared with subjects receiving usual care.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".