Mental Practice and Manipulative Skills Training Among People With Multiple Sclerosis: A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a demyelinating disease of the central nervous system that produces both motor and cognitive dysfunctions. Impairments in limb function as a result of MS cause a decline in the performance of activities of daily living (ADLs). OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the use of mental practice (MP) or MP combined with training in motor manipulation skills (skills training) would improve gross and fine motor skills and treatment satisfaction among people with MS. DESIGN: Pilot study with a duration of 3 mo plus 3-mo follow-up. SETTING: Two MS associations. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-five patients diagnosed with MS of the relapsing-remitting and progressive secondary subtypes, ages 25 to 60 yr. INTERVENTION: The participants were allocated to one of three groups according to their order of inclusion in the study: (1) MP, (2) MP + skills training, or (3) control group. The treatment protocol had a 6-wk duration and a total of 12 sessions. Outcomes and Measures: Blinded evaluators performed three assessments for each patient (pretreatment, posttreatment, and 3-mo follow-up) using the Nine-Hole Peg Test, Box and Block Test, ABILHAND, and Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM). RESULTS: We found no evidence of benefits in self-perceived performance of ADLs with respect to gross and fine motor skills; however, there was an improvement in perceived satisfaction and in the performance of activities, independent of the treatment received. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Perceived ADL performance and satisfaction with performance increases among people with MS when they receive MP, MP + skills training, and conventional rehabilitation treatment. What This Article Adds: Mental practice combined with conventional treatment could contribute to patients perceiving improved performance of ADLs. Self-reported outcome measures, such as the COPM, could provide highly valuable information about occupation performance that may not match the objective evidence.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
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".