Exertion Testing in Youth with Mild Traumatic Brain Injury/Concussion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The decision regarding return to activity (RTA) after mild traumatic brain injuries/concussion is one of the most difficult and controversial areas in concussion management, particularly for youth. This study investigated how youth with postconcussion syndrome (PCS) are affected by exertion and whether standardized exertion testing using the McMaster All-Out Progressive Continuous Cycling Test can contribute to clinical decision making for safe RTA. METHODS: Fifty-four youth (8.5-18.3 yr) with a previously confirmed concussion participated in the study. Each participant performed exertion testing on a cycle ergometer and completed a Postconcussion Symptom scale at the following time points: before exertion (baseline), 5 and 30 min, and 24 h after exertion. A modified Postconcussion Symptom scale was administered at 2-min intervals during exertion. RESULTS: Participants had a mean ± SD symptom duration of 6.3 ± 6.9 months after the most recent concussive injury, with a median of 4.1 months (range, 0.7-35 months). Sixty-three percent of participants had symptoms during exertion testing. Symptom profile (number and severity) significantly affected perception of exertion at 50% peak mechanical power. During acute assessment of symptoms (30-min after exertion), headache (P = 0.39), nausea (P = 0.63), and dizziness (P = 0.35) did not change. However, both the number and severity of symptoms significantly improved over 24 h, with 56.8% of youth showing improvements. The time from the most recent injury had a significant effect on the symptom score at baseline, 30 min after exertion, and 24 h after exertion. CONCLUSIONS: Exertion testing has an important role in the evaluation of symptoms and readiness to RTA, particularly in youth who are slow to recover. Overall, controlled exertion seemed to lesson symptoms for most youth.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".