The effects of rest and treatment following sport-related concussion: a systematic review of the literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the evidence for rest, treatment, and rehabilitation following sport-related concussion (SRC). DATA SOURCES: PubMed, CINAHL, PsychInfo, Cochrane Controlled Trials Registers, Health STAR, Sport Discus, EMBASE, Web of Science, and ProQuest. STUDY SELECTION: Articles were included if they met the following criteria: original research, reported SRC as a source of injury, and evaluated the effect of rest or treatment. DATA EXTRACTION: Study design, participants, treatment, outcome measures, and key findings. DATA SYNTHESIS: Three studies met the inclusion criteria for evaluating the effects of rest and twelve for treatment. Low-intensity aerobic exercise may be of benefit. CONCLUSIONS: The current evidence evaluating the effect of rest and treatment following SRC is sparse. An initial period of rest may be of benefit. Low-level exercise and multimodal physiotherapy may be of benefit for those who are slow to recover. There is a strong need for high level studies evaluating the effects of rest and treatment following SRC.
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 | 0.008 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".