Characteristics and outcomes of physical activity interventions for individuals with mild traumatic brain injury: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a major public health problem, and it is estimated that 85% of TBIs are diagnosed as mild and are commonly referred to as a concussion. In adults, symptoms are expected to resolve within 10-14 days after the injury, but up to 15% of individuals continue to have symptoms beyond this period. Recent clinical recommendations suggest the use of physical activity (PA) as a therapy to manage persisting symptoms. However, the recommendations regarding PA lack clarity about important intervention parameters to help clinicians deliver the intervention. The objectives of this scoping review are thus to identify the characteristics, the measurement tools, the health-related outcomes and the reported effectiveness of PA-based interventions for adults with persisting symptoms of a mild TBI (mTBI). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This scoping review protocol will follow Arksey and O'Malley's six-step iterative process enhanced by another study and will be conducted by a team of researchers and clinical experts. Five databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, SPORTDiscuss and Embase), as well as Google, will be searched using an extensive search strategy to capture relevant scientific and grey literature. Articles will be selected if they report on an intervention designed to have an impact on health-related outcomes or participation among individuals having sustained an mTBI. A data extraction form based on the Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template and the Template for Intervention Description and Replication checklists will be created. Quantitative and qualitative data will be analysed accordingly, synthesised and collated in tables. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This scoping review generates new knowledge from published and publicly available literature; thus, an ethical approval is unnecessary to conduct this research. Dissemination of the results will involve all team members in activities aimed to facilitate knowledge uptake among TBI rehabilitation clinical experts locally, nationally and internationally.
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 | 0.070 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.055 | 0.009 |
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".