MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2068359292 · doi:10.1097/htr.0b013e31825ad658

Is Rest After Concussion “The Best Medicine?”

2012· review· en· W2068359292 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsGF Strong Rehabilitation CentreUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsConcussionRest (music)Bed restMedicineTraumatic brain injuryPhysical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationInjury preventionSports medicinePoison controlMedical emergencyPsychiatryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Practice guidelines universally recommend an initial period of rest for people who sustain a sports-related concussion or mild traumatic brain injury (MTBI) in daily life or military service. This practice is difficult to reconcile with the compelling evidence that other health conditions can be worsened by inactivity and improved by early mobilization and exercise. We review the scientific basis for the recommendation to rest after MTBI, the challenges and potential unintended negative consequences of implementing it, and how patient management could be improved by refining it. The best available evidence suggests that complete rest exceeding 3 days is probably not helpful, gradual resumption of preinjury activities should begin as soon as tolerated (with the exception of activities that have a high MTBI exposure risk), and supervised exercise may benefit patients with persistent symptoms.

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.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.966
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.194
GPT teacher head0.469
Teacher spread0.275 · 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