The MoXFo Initiative: Using consensus methodology to move forward towards internationally shared vocabulary in multiple sclerosis exercise research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Multiple sclerosis (MS) exercise terminology lacks consistency across disciplines, hindering research synthesis. OBJECTIVE: The 'Moving exercise research in MS forward initiative' (MoXFo) aims to establish agreed definitions for key MS exercise terms. METHODS: The Lexicon development methodology was employed. A three-step process identified key exercise terminology for people with multiple sclerosis (pwMS): (1) consensus and systematic review, (2) Delphi round 1 and consideration of existing definitions and (3) Delphi round 2 for consensus among MoXFo steering group and exercise experts. Final definitions and style harmonisation were agreed upon. RESULTS: The two-stage Delphi process resulted in the selection and scoring of 30 terminology definitions. The agreement was 100% for resistance exercise, balance and physical activity. Most terms had agreement >75%, but 'posture' (60%) and 'exercise' (65%) had a lower agreement. CONCLUSION: This study identified key terms and obtained agreement on definitions for 30 terms. The variability in agreement for some terms supports the need for clearly referencing or defining terminology within publications to enable clear communication across disciplines and to support precise synthesis and accurate interpretation of research.
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 | 0.014 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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".