Physiological outcomes of physical activity interventions in persistent postconcussive symptoms: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are limited therapeutic options for patients with persistent postconcussive symptoms (PPCSs). Most PPCS assessments focus on subjective measures of progression and symptom monitoring. While early exercise interventions for rehabilitation are now considered best practice for acute concussion, no comprehensive review exists on how physical activity objectively and physiologically affects outcomes in PPCS. This scoping review protocol outlines the methods to identify the efficacy of therapeutic exercise interventions for PPCS, emphasising their impact on physiological parameters, including cardiovascular autonomic responses and cerebral autoregulation. Using the Patient, Intervention, Comparison and Outcome (PICO) framework, we will include all studies presenting original data. Narrative summaries will provide clinicians. An initial search in Medline/EMBASE/PubMed, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, Web of Science and Scopus will be completed. Key parameters from each study will be extracted, tabulated and discussed in a narrative inquiry. The study references will be reviewed for additional studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Future research applications from the findings will be emphasised. After completion of the review, the results will be stratified by type of physical activity as the intervention, emphasising the physiological outcomes. Mapping these findings will allow us to identify the key research priorities for future studies. Findings will be shared with PPCS practitioners and local/national committees and submitted for conferences and publications.
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 | 0.063 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.016 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.082 | 0.014 |
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".