The Sensor Technology and Rehabilitative Timing (START) Protocol: A Randomized Controlled Trial for the Rehabilitation of Mild Traumatic Brain Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clinical practice for rehabilitation after mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) is variable, and guidance on when to initiate physical therapy is lacking. Wearable sensor technology may aid clinical assessment, performance monitoring, and exercise adherence, potentially improving rehabilitation outcomes during unsupervised home exercise programs. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study were to: (1) determine whether initiating rehabilitation earlier than typical will improve outcomes after mTBI, and (2) examine whether using wearable sensors during a home-exercise program will improve outcomes in participants with mTBI. DESIGN: This was a randomized controlled trial. SETTING: This study will take place within an academic hospital setting at Oregon Health & Science University and Veterans Affairs Portland Health Care System, and in the home environment. PARTICIPANTS: This study will include 160 individuals with mTBI. INTERVENTION: The early intervention group (n = 80) will receive one-on-one physical therapy 8 times over 6 weeks and complete daily home exercises. The standard care group (n = 80) will complete the same intervention after a 6- to 8-week wait period. One-half of each group will receive wearable sensors for therapist monitoring of patient adherence and quality of movements during their home exercise program. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome measure will be the Dizziness Handicap Inventory score. Secondary outcome measures will include symptomatology, static and dynamic postural control, central sensorimotor integration posturography, and vestibular-ocular-motor function. LIMITATIONS: Potential limitations include variable onset of care, a wide range of ages, possible low adherence and/or withdrawal from the study in the standard of care group, and low Dizziness Handicap Inventory scores effecting ceiling for change after rehabilitation. CONCLUSIONS: If initiating rehabilitation earlier improves primary and secondary outcomes post-mTBI, this could help shape current clinical care guidelines for rehabilitation. Additionally, using wearable sensors to monitor performance and adherence may improve home exercise outcomes.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.003 |
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".