Identifying the Cerebral Physiologic Response to Aerobic Exercise Following Concussion: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to identify the cerebral physiologic response to aerobic exercise in individuals with a symptomatic concussion, highlighting available knowledge and knowledge gaps in the literature. DESIGN: A systematic scoping review was conducted and reported in keeping with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension for scoping reviews. A search of EMBASE, MEDLINE, SCOPUS, BIOSIS, and Cochrane libraries was conducted on June 15, 2023 (from database inception). An online systematic/scoping review management system was used to remove duplicates, and the remaining articles were screened for inclusion by 2 researchers. Inclusion criteria required articles to be original research published in peer-reviewed journals. Additionally, studies were required to have an aerobic exercise component, include a measure of cerebral physiology during a bout of aerobic exercise, exclude moderate and/or severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) populations, and be in the English language. Both human and animal studies were included, with participants of any age who were diagnosed with a mild TBI/concussion only (ie, Glasgow Coma Scale score ≥ 13). Studies could be of any design as long as a measure of cerebral physiologic response to a bout of aerobic exercise was included. RESULTS: The search resulted in 1773 articles to be screened and data from 3 eligible studies were extracted. CONCLUSIONS: There are currently too few studies investigating the cerebral physiologic response to aerobic exercise following concussion or mild TBI to draw definitive conclusions. Further research on this topic is necessary since understanding the cerebral physiologic response to aerobic exercise in the concussion and mild TBI populations could assist in optimizing exercise-based treatment prescription and identifying other targeted therapies.
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 | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".