Benefits of Adhering to the Canadian Physical Activity Guidelines for Adults with Multiple Sclerosis Beyond Aerobic Fitness and Strength
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: The Canadian Physical Activity Guidelines for Adults with Multiple Sclerosis (PAGs) were released in 2013 but have yet to be validated. We aimed to test the effectiveness of the PAGs in improving fitness, mobility, fatigue symptoms, and quality of life (QOL) in a large cohort of adults with multiple sclerosis (MS). Methods: As part of an ongoing randomized controlled trial examining implementation of the PAGs, participants were randomized to either a direct referral group (physician referral to an exercise program following the PAGs; n = 42) or a control group (provided a print copy of the PAGs; n = 37). Physical activity behavior was assessed through weekly physical activity logs. Fitness, mobility, fatigue symptoms, and QOL were assessed at baseline and after 16 weeks. Participants were categorized as either PAG adherers (n = 30) or nonadherers (n = 49) to the PAGs based on achieving the weekly exercise recommendations at least 75% of the time. Results: Adherence to the PAGs was twice as high in the referral group compared with the control group. Adherers experienced significantly greater improvements in peak oxygen consumption (29%), strength (7%–18%), mobility (16%), fatigue symptoms (−36%), and QOL (17%–22%) compared with nonadherers (P < .05). Conclusions: Following the PAGs for at least 12 of 16 weeks results in improvements in fitness, mobility, fatigue symptoms, and QOL, confirming their effectiveness for improving health in people with MS.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".