Occupation-Based Intervention for People With Multiple Sclerosis: A Feasibility Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study aims to evaluate the feasibility of an occupation-based intervention (OBI) on dexterity and occupational performance for people with multiple sclerosis (MS) and to gather preliminary efficacy data. METHODS: In this feasibility study, 2 women with MS participated in 12 OBI sessions that focused on increasing upper extremity function. The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure, 9-Hole Peg Test, Expanded Disability Status Scale, Montreal Cognitive Assessment, and Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS) were used as outcome measures. The scores of these assessments are reported descriptively. RESULTS: According to preliminary data, both participants demonstrated improvements in dexterity, occupational performance, and occupational performance satisfaction. These data suggest that OBI may be implemented effectively in Iran. CONCLUSIONS: OBI improved the functional use of the participants' upper extremities as well as their occupational performance and satisfaction with their occupational performance in each of the 2 women with MS. This preliminary intervention program should be further tested using randomized controlled trials.
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 | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".