Accessible exercise equipment and individuals with multiple sclerosis: Aerobic demands and preferences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although exercise training has benefits for individuals with multiple sclerosis (MS), research regarding the type of exercise equipment that requires the greatest aerobic demand, and consumer-based preferences, is lacking. OBJECTIVE: To determine the aerobic demands of various pieces of accessible exercise equipment and consumer-based preferences on several domains. METHODS: Ten individuals with moderate-severity MS had their VO2 measured during 10 minutes of moderate-intensity arm ergometry (AE), body-weight support treadmill training (BWSTT), recumbent arm-leg exercise (NuStep), FES-arm exercise (RT300), FES-leg exercise (RT300) and FES arm-leg exercise (RT200). VO2peak test was also measured on the NuStep and the RT200. Equipment preferences were determined by questionnaire after moderate exercise sessions. RESULTS: AE required a lower VO2 compared to the NuStep (p = 0.02), and FES-arm exercise required a lower VO2 compared to the NuStep (p = 0.01) and FES arm-leg exercise (p = 0.04). There was no difference in VO2peak when using the NuStep or FES arm-leg exercise. AE was perceived as safer than BWSTT, but otherwise there were no preferences for any equipment. CONCLUSIONS: For individuals with moderate-severity MS, arm-only exercise requires less aerobic demands than combined arm-leg exercise at a moderate intensity. Perceived risks may be greater when exercise requires a transfer, upright positioning, or assistance.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".