A Randomized Controlled Trial of Exercise to Improve Mood After Traumatic Brain Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that a structured aerobic exercise regimen would decrease the severity of depressive symptoms in people with traumatic brain injury (TBI) who reported at least mild depression severity at baseline. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, controlled trial. SETTING: Community gymnasium. PARTICIPANTS: Subjects with a history of a prior TBI (6 months to 5 years post-injury), recruited from the community. Inclusion criteria included scoring ≥ 5 on the Patient Health Questionnaire-9. Subjects were excluded if they were non-English speakers, had a medical condition precluding exercise, had suicidal ideation, regularly exercised, or could not use standard aerobic exercise equipment. INTERVENTION: Weekly supervised exercise sessions over a 10-week period consisted of education, warm-up, 30 minutes of aerobic exercise, and cool down. The exercise intensity was adjusted to reach a heart rate goal of 60% of the participant's estimated maximal heart rate. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENT: Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) comparing exercise to control groups. Post hoc analyses compared groups exercising ≥ 90 minutes or <90 minutes per week. RESULTS: Between-group comparisons at 10 weeks revealed no difference between groups on the BDI (P = .250). For the groups divided by minutes exercised per week, the high-activity group had significantly better depression scores than those in the low-activity group (P = .033). CONCLUSIONS: Although there was no statistically significant difference between the treated and the control group on mood after intervention, those persons with TBI who recounted higher levels of exercise per week also reported less depression and improved sleep, community participation, and overall quality of life.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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".