P.134 Movement medicine: A systematic review on the effect of early aerobic exercise initiation on symptom recovery following concussion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Mounting evidence supports aerobic exercise as a promising treatment option for individuals experiencing persistent post-concussion symptoms beyond four weeks. The purpose of this review was to determine whether initiating structured aerobic exercise within the early period (first two weeks) following concussion affects symptom recovery compared to standard care. Methods: A systematic literature search was performed using MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CENTRAL databases, combining keywords: (brain concussion, post-concussion syndrome, mild traumatic brain injury) AND (exercise, exercise therapy, physical activity, kinesiotherapy). Results were limited to Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs). All selected articles underwent quality assessment. Results: The search generated 112 unique abstracts, of which 5 met inclusion criteria. Sample sizes ranged from 16 to 103 participants. Of the four studies that were able to analyze between-group differences, one showed significantly faster recovery in the early aerobic exercise group compared to control, while three showed no significant difference. Two studies demonstrated a trend toward faster initial symptom resolution in the early exercise group. Conclusions: Preliminary RCT evidence suggests that aerobic exercise initiated in the early postconcussion period does not exacerbate symptoms or prolong recovery time, and may potentially hasten recovery. Larger, more rigorous RCTs are required to define the optimal exercise parameters to facilitate symptom recovery.
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 | 0.004 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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".