Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The sport medicine team is increasingly being asked to manage concussed athletes and to provide written clearance for return to play postconcussion, making it critical to have a good understanding of concussion recognition, assessment, and management. DATA SOURCES/SYNTHESIS: A handy way to think of concussion management is the four Rs: recognition, response, rehabilitation, and return. RESULTS: Athletes, coaches, parents, therapists, and physicians need a thorough understanding of concussion signs and symptoms. An athlete suspected of having sustained a concussion should be removed from the game or practice and assessed by a member of the sideline medical team. All athletes who sustain a concussion should be evaluated by a medical doctor. Rehabilitation has similarities to but also differs from the traditional orthopedic model in that the first step is rest, both physical and cognitive. Once asymptomatic at rest, a step-wise return to activity is undertaken. CONCLUSIONS: This protocol has been adapted for various sports. It may be used for children, although it is prudent to be more conservative and to progress more slowly than in an older age group.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 teacher head, 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".