MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2767802387 · doi:10.1136/bjsports-2017-098667

Cervicovestibular rehabilitation following sport-related concussion

2017· article· en· W2767802387 on OpenAlexafffund
Kathryn Schneider, Willem Meeuwisse, Karen Barlow, Carolyn A. Emery

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Sports Medicine · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsHotchkiss Brain InstituteAlberta Children's HospitalUniversity of Calgary
FundersAlberta Centre for Child, Family and Community Research
KeywordsConcussionPhysical medicine and rehabilitationRehabilitationMedicinePhysical therapyInjury preventionPsychologyPoison controlMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dizziness, neck pain and headaches are commonly reported following a sport-related concussion and may persist.1 2 A combination of cervical and vestibular physiotherapy facilitates recovery following sport-related concussion in individuals with ongoing symptoms of dizziness, neck pain and headaches.3 In our randomised controlled trial (RCT), a higher proportion of individuals treated with multimodal physiotherapy were reported to be medically cleared to return to sport (within 8 weeks) than that of individuals who received a control intervention.4 However, the effect of timing of treatment is not currently known. Here we share the results of the second phase of this RCT, which evaluated the efficacy of multimodal physiotherapy and vestibular rehabilitation compared with rest in individuals with persistent symptoms of dizziness, neck pain and/or headaches following a sport-related concussion. Individuals who had already completed an 8-week period of either multimodal physiotherapy …

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.309 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations33
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of Sports MedicineSame topicTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207