Is There an Optimal Time to Initiate an Active Rehabilitation Protocol for Concussion Management in Children? A Case Series
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To estimate the time frame during which initiating an active rehabilitation intervention (aerobic exercise, balance, and sport specific skills) after concussion contributed to improvement in symptoms at follow-up in children and adolescents who are slow to recover (symptoms persisting beyond 2 weeks) from concussion. SETTING: Concussion clinic at a tertiary care pediatric teaching hospital. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 677 children and adolescents with concussion aged 7 to 18 years. DESIGN: Case series of participants starting active rehabilitation less than 2, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6 or more weeks postconcussion. MAIN MEASURE: Symptom severity measured by the 22-item Post-Concussion Scale (PCS)-revised. RESULTS: All patients experienced significant improvement of symptoms while participating in active rehabilitation, irrespective of the start time postonset. Patients initiating active rehabilitation at 2 (P < .001) or 3 (P = .039) weeks postinjury demonstrated lower symptom severity at follow-up than those starting at 6 weeks or later. Patients starting at 2 weeks had lower symptom severity than patients starting less than 2 (P = .02), 4 (P = .20), or 5 weeks postinjury (P = .04). Lastly, patients starting less than 2 and 6 weeks or more postinjury yielded equivalent outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The findings support the use of active rehabilitation in children and adolescents who are slow to recover from concussion. Participants starting active rehabilitation less than 2 weeks and up to 6 or more weeks postconcussion demonstrated significant symptom improvements, but improvement was observed in all groups, regardless of the time to start active rehabilitation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".