Sport-Related Structural Brain Injury and Return to Play: Systematic Review and Expert Insight
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sport-related structural brain injury (SRSBI) is intracranial pathology incurred during sport. Management mirrors that of non-sport-related brain injury. An empirical vacuum exists regarding return to play (RTP) following SRSBI. OBJECTIVE: To provide key insight for operative management and RTP following SRSBI using a (1) focused systematic review and (2) survey of expert opinions. METHODS: A systematic literature review of SRSBI from 2012 to present in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and a cross-sectional survey of RTP in SRSBI by 31 international neurosurgeons was conducted. RESULTS: Of 27 included articles out of 241 systematically reviewed, 9 (33.0%) case reports provided RTP information for 12 athletes. To assess expert opinion, 31 of 32 neurosurgeons (96.9%) provided survey responses. For acute, asymptomatic SRSBI, 12 (38.7%) would not operate. Of the 19 (61.3%) who would operate, midline shift (63.2%) and hemorrhage size > 10 mm (52.6%) were the most common indications. Following SRSBI with resolved hemorrhage, with or without burr holes, the majority of experts (>75%) allowed RTP to high-contact/collision sports at 6 to 12 mo. Approximately 80% of experts did not endorse RTP to high-contact/collision sports for athletes with persistent hemorrhage. Following craniotomy for SRSBI, 40% to 50% of experts considered RTP at 6 to 12 mo. Linear regression revealed that experts allowed earlier RTP at higher levels of play (β = -0.58, 95% CI -0.111, -0.005, P = .033). CONCLUSION: RTP decisions following structural brain injury in athletes are markedly heterogeneous. While individualized RTP decisions are critical, aggregated expert opinions from 31 international sports neurosurgeons provide key insight. Level of play was found to be an important consideration in RTP determinations.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".