MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4226204481 · doi:10.1037/neu0000805

Better cognitive function predicts maintenance of dual-task walking ability over time among people with relapsing-remitting MS.

2022· article· en· W4226204481 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Bruna D. Baldasso, Megan C. Kirkland, Caitlin J. Newell, Michelle Ploughman

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuropsychology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanada Research ChairsCanada Foundation for Innovation
KeywordsPsychologyMontreal Cognitive AssessmentCognitionPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPreferred walking speedTask (project management)PsycINFOAudiologyCognitive impairmentMedicineNeuroscienceMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Physical fitness and preserved cognitive function may provide neuroprotection in multiple sclerosis (MS), but few studies have examined their role in symptom progression over time. Dual-task paradigms can be useful to detect subtle impairment among people with MS in early stages of the disease. The present study investigated whether higher aerobic fitness or greater cognitive function could predict performance in dual-task walking 1-2 years later among people with mild or no MS-related walking impairment. METHOD: at baseline (T1) were examined as predictors of dual-task walking speed at T2. RESULTS: MoCA (higher score), but not SDMT or fitness, was significantly correlated with percentage decrease in dual-task walking and was a significant predictor of dual-task-walking speed at T2, accounting for additional 6.1% of its variance. Cognitive impairment (MoCA < 26) at baseline corresponded to a 12 cm/s unit decrease in dual-task-walking speed at T2. CONCLUSIONS: Our results provide longitudinal evidence that better cognitive function, specifically global MoCA score, may protect against decline in dual-task walking ability over the years. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.103
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.260 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuropsychologySame topicMultiple Sclerosis Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207