Effectiveness of an Exercise-Based Active Rehabilitation Intervention for Youth Who Are Slow to Recover After Concussion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: (1) To determine the impact of providing participants aged 8 to 17 years who are slow to recover after a concussion with a well-developed active rehabilitation intervention (ARI), compared with receiving standard care alone, on postconcussion symptoms (PCS) at 2 and 6 weeks after the initiation of ARI; and (2) to investigate functional recovery 6 weeks after initiation of ARI. DESIGN: A multicenter prospective quasi-experimental control group design. SETTING: Tertiary care pediatric trauma center and community health care providers. PARTICIPANTS: Forty-nine youth were enrolled (experimental n = 36; control n = 13). PROCEDURES: Participants were assessed on 3 different occasions: (1) initial visit (baseline); (2) 2 weeks; and (3) 6 weeks after enrollment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Child- and parent-reported PCS were obtained by the PCS Inventory Scale (primary outcome). Secondary outcomes included: (1) mood and anxiety; (2) quality of life; (3) energy level; (4) coordination and balance; (5) neurocognition; (6) parental anxiety; and (7) satisfaction with intervention. RESULTS: Both groups reported decrease of PCS over time (child: P = 0.01; parent: P = 0.03). Children in the experimental group presented higher quality of life (P = 0.04) and less anger (P = 0.02). A trend toward significance was observed for better tandem gait (P = 0.07) and for less general fatigue on self-reported PCS (P = 0.09) in the experimental group. CONCLUSIONS: Active rehabilitation intervention does not affect the PCS beyond the usual management, but it increases their quality of life, decreases anger, and potentially increases energy level and balance.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".