The relationship between physical activity and symptoms of fatigue, mood, and perceived cognitive impairment in adults with multiple sclerosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Multiple Sclerosis (MS) is achronic neurological condition that requires costly treatment for aconstellation of motor and sensory symptoms, as well as fatigue, depression, and cognitive problems. Given that this pharmacological treatment often results in side effects, there is acrucial need for low-costbehavioral treatments that are effective in further reducing MS symptoms. It has been hypothesized that physical activity may slow the neurodegenerative progression of MS. The aim of the current study was to investigate the relationship between physical activity and commonly reported MS symptoms, including fatigue, depression, and perceived cognitive impairment.Method: 86 individuals with MS responded to amail-outquestionnaire. Physical activity, fatigue, mood, and perceived cognitive impairment were assessed using the following measures: Godin Leisure-TimeExercise Questionnaire (GLTEQ), Modified Fatigue Impact Scale (MFIS), Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), and Patient Deficit Questionnaire (PDQ). Descriptive and correlational statistics were calculated to investigate the relationship between scores on the GLTEQ and scores on the MFIS, PHQ-9, and PDQ. Results: Overall, there was asignificant negative relationship between physical activity (GLTEQ) and fatigue (MFIS; r= –.34, p= .002) and depression (PHQ-9; r= –.23, p= .034) in individuals with MS. There was not asignificant relationship between physical activity and overall perceived cognitive dysfunction (PDQ; r= –.19, p= .08), but when the PDQ subscales were examined, there was asignificant relationship with perceived retrospective (r = 0.24, p= .03) and prospective memory abilities (r = –.22, p= .04). When the RRMS and progressive subtypes were examined separately, we observed asimilar pattern of results for the RRMS group, but the progressive MS group did not reach significance.Conclusions: Individuals with MS who reported more strenuous and/or frequent physical activity, reported fewer problems with fatigue, depression, and perceived memory abilities.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".