Association Between Cognitive Impairment and Motor Dysfunction among Patients with Multiple Sclerosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objectives: 1. To study the association between cognitive impairment (CI) and motor dysfunction (MD) among patients with MS. 2. To examine if muscle weakness, motor incoordination, balance impairment, gait abnormalities, and/or increased fall risk can be adopted as indicator of CI in patients with MS. Methods: Seventy patients with multiple sclerosis were included in this cross-sectional study. They underwent assessment of cognitive impairment using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment Scale (MoCA), muscle strength using the Handheld dynamometer, balance, gait, and fall risk assessment using Tinetti scale. Moreover, motor coordination was assessed for both upper and lower extremities through the Timed Rapid Alternating Movement for Upper Extremity and Timed Alternate Heel-to-Knee Test for lower extremity. Results: A Significant association was found between CI and motor coordination, balance, gait, and risk of fall (p< 0.005) apart from muscle strength. Stepwise multiple linear regression showed that 22.7% of the variance in the MoCA was predictable from the fall risk and the incoordination of upper extremity among MS population. Conclusion: CI is significantly associated with motor incoordination, balance impairment, gait abnormality, and increased fall risk. Furthermore, the risk of fall and upper extremity incoordination appeared as the best indicators of CI among patients with 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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".