Walking Training Enhances Corticospinal Excitability in Progressive Multiple Sclerosis—A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Inflammatory lesions and neurodegeneration lead to motor, cognitive and sensory impairments in people with multiple sclerosis (MS). Accumulation of disability is at least partially due to diminished capacity for neuroplasticity within the central nervous system. Aerobic exercise is a potentially important intervention to enhance neuroplasticity since it causes upregulation of neurotrophins and enhances corticospinal excitability which can be probed using single-pulse Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS). Whether people with progressive MS who have accumulated substantial disability could benefit from walking rehabilitative training to enhance neuroplasticity is not known. Objective: We aimed to determine whether 10 weeks of task-specific walking training would affect corticospinal excitability over time (PRE, POST and 3-month Follow-Up) among people with progressive MS who required walking aids. Results: Eight people with progressive MS (7 females; 29-74 years-old) with an Expanded Disability Status Scale of 6-6.5 underwent harness-supported treadmill walking training in a temperature controlled room at 16°C (10 weeks; 3 times/week; 40 minutes at 40-65% heart rate reserve). After training, there was significantly higher corticospinal excitability in both brain hemispheres; reductions in TMS active motor thresholds and increases in motor evoked potential amplitudes and slope of the recruitment curve (REC). Decreased intracortical inhibition (shorter cortical silent period) after training was noted in the hemisphere corresponding to the stronger hand only. These effects were not sustained at follow-up. There was a significant relationship between increases in corticospinal excitability (REC, area under the curve) in the hemisphere corresponding to the stronger hand and lessening of both intensity and impact of fatigue on activities of daily living (Fatigue Severity Scale, and Modified Fatigue Impact Scale, respectively). Conclusion: Our pilot results support that vigorous treadmill training can potentially improve neuroplastic potential and mitigate symptoms of the disease even among people who have accumulated substantial disability due to 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".