Feasibility of exercise for adolescents with persisting symptoms following a sport-related concussion: a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To describe the feasibility and safety of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing active rehabilitation (AR) to treatment as usual (TAU) in adolescents with persistent symptoms following a sport-related concussion. Design Partially blinded, pilot RCT. Setting Outpatient Rehabilitation Hospital. Participants 13 adolescents enrolled and completed the study (10 girls, 3 boys). All were between the ages of 12–18 and were symptomatic for greater than 4 weeks. Participants were excluded if they had more than 1 concussion in the last year, any active mental health disorder, or if their concussion occurred more than 1 year from enrolment. Intervention Participants were randomly allocated to TAU (occupational therapy and school recommendations) or AR. AR included aerobic exercise, positive visualisation techniques, and sport-specific exercises. AR sessions were supervised by a physiotherapist, and a blinded assessor monitored all participants weekly. Outcome measures Investigators monitored symptoms using the Post-Concussion Symptom Inventory. Secondary outcome measures included activity level, balance, mood, fatigue, and return to school. Main results 125 individuals were screened over a 1.25 year period. Of the 22% of individuals deemed eligible, 15 declined to participate. Most commonly, individuals were excluded due to being unreachable, uninterested, or having more than one concussion. No drop outs occurred. An external committee reviewed two adverse events in TAU and 1 adverse event in the AR group. All adverse events were unrelated to the intervention and study procedures. Conclusions Based on this small pilot study, exercise appeared safe in this sample of youth with persistent symptoms. Competing interests None.
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 | 0.012 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".