Feasibility and Safety of a Powered Exoskeleton for Balance Training for People Living with Multiple Sclerosis: A Single-Group Preliminary Study (Rapper III)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the feasibility, usability, safety, and potential health benefits of using an exoskeleton device for rehabilitation of people living with multiple sclerosis.Design: Single-group preliminary study.Subjects: Eleven adults living with multiple sclerosis, with Expanded Disability Status Scores that ranged from 6 to 7.5 (mean age (standard deviation; SD) 54.2 (11.8) years), were recruited.Methods: Individual participants undertook a balance rehabilitation exercise programme using the Rex Rehab robotic exoskeleton device. Each participant undertook 4 × 45–60 min supervised, balance exercise sessions. Primary outcomes were: (i) the number of participants who completed the trial protocol safely, and (ii) the number and nature of adverse events reported. Secondary outcomes were: mobility; balance; spasticity; sleep; functional independence; quality of life; and device satisfaction.Results: Ten out of 11 participants completed the trial protocol safely. Four adverse events were recorded (1 serious), all of which were deemed unrelated to the trial. Secondary outcomes showed allied improvements in balance, joint mobility, spasticity and quality of life. All participants found the device acceptable to use.Conclusion: These results suggest that it is feasible and safe to use the Rex Rehab exoskeleton device to assist with balance rehabilitation for people living with multiple sclerosis. LAY ABSTRACTMultiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic neurological disease that can lead to symptoms, including muscle weakness and balance issues. The incidence of falls in people living with MS (PwMS) is 3 times higher than that in older people. To try to reduce this vulnerability to falls, this study aimed to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and potential health benefits of using an exoskeleton device for a balance exercise programme. Eleven PwMS undertook 4×45–60 min supervised, balance exercise sessions using the exoskeleton device. Feasibility and safety were assessed by identifying the number of participants who completed the trial safely; consideration of any issues experienced during the trial and how these were resolved. Ten participants completed the trial (1 withdrew due to their MS) and only 4 issues were reported, all of which were unrelated to the trial. Some participants also experienced improvements in balance, mobility, and quality of life.
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 | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".