MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405263293 · doi:10.1177/13524585241301613

Exercise as a Therapeutic Intervention in Multiple Sclerosis

2024· review· en· W4405263293 on OpenAlexaff
Lara A. Pilutti, Sarah J. Donkers

Bibliographic record

VenueMultiple Sclerosis Journal · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultiple sclerosisIntervention (counseling)MedicineExercise prescriptionPhysical therapyDiseasePhysical medicine and rehabilitationPhysical exerciseExercise therapyPsychologyRandomized controlled trialPsychiatryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The role of exercise as a therapeutic intervention in multiple sclerosis (MS) has shifted over time. Early views surrounding exercise in MS advocated for caution against participation. With increasing evidence, perspectives shifted to promote exercise as a therapeutic approach for symptom management. Recent efforts have focused on understanding the potential disease-modifying effects of exercise in MS, although this work is still in its infancy. While efforts continue to optimize exercise prescriptions and unravel underlying mechanisms of exercise effects, current knowledge and implementation gaps limit the accessibility of exercise as therapy for all people living with MS. This topical review is based on an invited presentation on ‘ Exercise as a Therapeutic Intervention in MS’ delivered at the ACTRIMS Forum 2024. The review summarizes current evidence for the role of exercise as a therapeutic intervention in MS from symptomatic to disease-modifying potential. We highlight directions for future research efforts to advance our understanding of potential exercise benefits and translate findings into real-world contexts for people living 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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.972
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.004
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.002

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 head0.294
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.102 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations8
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMultiple Sclerosis JournalSame topicMultiple Sclerosis Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207