Exercise and lifestyle physical activity recommendations for people with multiple sclerosis throughout the disease course
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To provide clinicians who treat multiple sclerosis (MS) patients with evidence-based or expert opinion-based recommendations for promoting exercise and lifestyle physical activity across disability levels. METHODS: The National MS Society ("Society") convened clinical and research experts in the fields of MS, exercise, rehabilitation, and physical activity to (1) reach consensus on optimal exercise and lifestyle physical activity recommendations for individuals with MS at disability levels 0-9.0 on the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) and (2) identify and address barriers/facilitators for participation. RECOMMENDATIONS: Based on current evidence and expert opinion, the Society makes the following recommendations, endorsed by the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers:Healthcare providers should endorse and promote the benefits/safety of exercise and lifestyle physical activity for every person with MS.Early evaluation by a physical or occupational therapist or exercise or sport scientist, experienced in MS (hereafter referred to as "specialists"), is recommended to establish an individualized exercise and/or lifestyle physical activity plan.Taking into account comorbidities and symptom fluctuations, healthcare providers should encourage ⩾150 min/week of exercise and/or ⩾150 min/week of lifestyle physical activity.Progress toward these targets should be gradual, based on the person's abilities, preferences, and safety.If disability increases and exercise/physical activity becomes more challenging, referrals to specialists are essential to ensure safe and appropriate prescriptions.When physical mobility is very limited, exercise should be facilitated by a trained assistant.
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 | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
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".