Physical activity following sport-related concussion in adolescents: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The systematic review evaluated the evidence related to how physical activity affects recovery following a sport-related concussion (SRC) in adolescents. Databases indexed were PUBMED, MEDLINE, and SPORTDiscus. Inclusion criteria included 1) original research article, 2) ≥66% have an SRC diagnosed by a clinician, 3) human research, and 4) evaluated the effect of an SRC on physical activity in adolescents only (<18 yr). Participants were seen within 1–2 wk after SRC for acute studies and 4 wk after SRC for studies focused on prolonged recoveries, which are standard timelines across the literature. Twenty-two studies met the inclusion criteria [i.e., 8 regarding physical activity (PA-daily aerobic activity including light and moderate intensities), 8 evaluating active rehabilitation/exercise programs (20 min of daily aerobic exercise below symptom threshold), 6 examining a single bout of exertion]. The methodological quality of the literature was assessed using the Downs and Black risk of bias (ROB) checklist. The ROB scores ranged from 7 to 24, with only two randomized controlled trials included. Studies demonstrated that single bouts of exertion testing were safe and feasible. Daily PA or active rehabilitation/exercise programs led to a reduction in symptoms present and a decrease in number of days to medical clearance. Following a brief period of rest (24–48 h), individuals may gradually and safely return to PA below their physical symptom exacerbation thresholds. Further research is warranted to delineate how to optimize the timing, intensity, duration, and modality of PA impacts symptom resolution and physiological recovery following different subtypes of SRC.
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 | 0.007 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".