ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2025
Accelerometry-Assessed Physical Activity and Circadian Rhythm to Detect Clinical Disability Status in Multiple Sclerosis: Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Accelerometry-derived activity fragmentation as a predictor of brain atrophy and disability progression in multiple sclerosis.Multiple sclerosis (Houndmills, Basingstoke, England) · 2026Article
- Association of Changes in Activity Patterns With Brain Atrophy and Disability Progression in People With Multiple Sclerosis.Neurology · 2026Article
- Quantifying observable movement reserve in multiple sclerosis via upper diurnal activity quantiles.Multiple sclerosis (Houndmills, Basingstoke, England) · 2026Article
- Sensors in Multiple Sclerosis.Current neurology and neuroscience reports · 2025Review
- Short-term changes in objectively measured activity predict brain atrophy and disability progression in multiple sclerosis.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Tools for measuring clinical disability status in people with multiple sclerosis (MS) are limited. Accelerometry objectively assesses physical activity and circadian rhythmicity profiles in the real-world environment and may potentially distinguish levels of disability in MS. Objective: This study aims to determine if accelerometry can detect differences in physical activity and circadian rhythms between relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) and progressive multiple sclerosis (PMS) and to assess the interplay within person between the 2 domains of physical activity (PA) and circadian rhythm (CR) in relation to MS type. Methods: This study represents an analysis of the baseline data from the prospective HEAL-MS (home-based evaluation of actigraphy to predict longitudinal function in multiple sclerosis) study. Participants were divided into 3 groups based on the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) criteria for sustained disability progression: RRMS-Stable, RRMS-Suspected progression, and PMS. Baseline visits occurred between January 2021 and March 2023. Clinical outcome measures were collected by masked examiners. Participants wore the GT9X Link ActiGraph on their nondominant wrists for 2 weeks. After adjusting for age, sex, and BMI, a logistic regression model was fitted to evaluate the association of each accelerometry metric with odds of PMS versus RRMS. We also evaluated the association of accelerometry metrics in differentiating the 2 RRMS subtypes. The Joint and Individual Variation Explained (JIVE) model was used to assess the codependencies between the PA and CR domains and their joint and individual association with MS subtype. Results: A total of 253 participants were included: 86 with RRMS-Stable, 82 with RRMS-Suspected progression, and 85 with PMS. Compared to RRMS, participants with PMS had lower total activity counts (β=-0.32, 95% CI -0.61 to -0.03), lower time spent in moderate to vigorous physical activity (β=-0.01, 95% CI -0.02 to -0.004), higher active-to-sedentary transition probability (β=5.68, 95% CI 1.86-9.5), lower amplitude (β=-0.0004, 95% CI -0.0008 to -0.0001), higher intradaily variability (β=4.64, 95% CI 1.45-7.84), and lower interdaily stability (β=-4.43, 95% CI -8.77 to -0.10). Using the JIVE model for PA and CR domains, PMS had higher first joint component (β=0.367, 95% CI 0.088-0.656), lower PA-1 component (β=-0.441, 95% CI -0.740 to -0.159), and lower PA-2 component (β=-0.415, 95% CI -0.717 to -0.126) compared to RRMS. No significant differences were detected between the 2 RRMS subtypes except for lower relative amplitude in those with suspected progression (β=-5.26, 95% CI -10.80 to -0.20). Conclusions: Accelerometry detected differences in physical activity patterns between RRMS and PMS. More advanced analytic techniques may help discern differences between the 2 RRMS subgroups. Longitudinal follow-up is underway to assess the potential for accelerometry to detect or predict disability progression.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.