Research interrupted: The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on multiple sclerosis research in the field of rehabilitation and quality of life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has likely had a negative impact on rehabilitation and quality of life (QoL) research in multiple sclerosis (MS). METHOD: We explored perceived barriers to research among 87 researchers, representing 18 countries, both prior to and since COVID-19. RESULTS: A Wilcoxon signed-rank test found that significantly more researchers reported experiencing barriers to research since the onset of the pandemic compared to pre-COVID-19 (p < .001), with 78% of respondents reporting at least some barriers since COVID-19. The most commonly-cited barriers related to participant access (n = 38) and interruptions/delays to projects (n = 19). Although no gender differences were found in the number of barriers reported, female respondents were more likely to cite time or competing demands as barriers to research. Females were also more likely to perceive being negatively impacted by the pandemic compared to other genders (p = .007). CONCLUSIONS: Implications for the future landscape of rehabilitation research in MS are discussed.
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 | 0.015 | 0.027 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".