Efficacy of aerobic exercise following concussion: a narrative review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Concussion is a type of mild traumatic brain injury which results in symptoms within the physical, cognitive, emotional, and sleep domains. Historically, guidelines established by expert opinion have recommended rest during the initial stages of recovery following a concussion until symptom resolution. However, recent recommendations have shifted to advise an initial period of 24-48 h of rest immediately following concussion with the gradual introduction of light-to-moderate intensity aerobic exercise thereafter. Given the relatively recent transition in recommendations, the aim of this review is to provide an overview of the current literature on the efficacy of aerobic exercise following concussion. The current literature is limited to studies assessing the impact of standardized aerobic exercise following concussion. Upon review, literature suggests participating in aerobic exercise below the point of symptom exacerbation is safe in both the acute and chronic post-concussion symptom stages of recovery and does not delay time to medical clearance. Future large-scale randomized controlled trials assessing the impact of aerobic exercise and differences between males and females would help support the current evidence suggesting aerobic exercise could improve time to recovery following concussion and identify any sex differences in response. As well, future studies with the purpose of identifying optimal aerobic exercise volume and intensity in the treatment of concussion could improve the specificity of the current guidelines.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".