Participation as an Outcome in Multiple Sclerosis Falls-Prevention Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Selecting the outcomes for an intervention trial is a key decision that influences many other aspects of the study design. One of the major tasks during the 3-day inaugural meeting of the International MS Falls Prevention Research Network was to identify the key outcomes for the falls-prevention intervention that was being designed by the Network members for testing across their multiple sites. Through a nominal group process, meeting participants described how engagement in important, meaningful everyday activities, beyond traditional basic and instrumental activities of daily living, should be a long-term outcome of a successful falls-prevention intervention for people with MS. Post-meeting work, which involved literature reviews and comparisons of definitions of major constructs identified during the meeting discussions, led to the consensus recommendation of including participation as a long-term outcome in MS falls-prevention interventions. Participation reflects involvement in a life situation. This article explains the rationale for this recommendation and presents four measures that have the potential for use in tracking long-term participation outcomes in MS falls-prevention research.
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 | 0.306 | 0.317 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".