Promoting Early Aerobic Exercise Initiation After Concussion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Research on aerobic exercise post-concussion has focused on athletes recovering from sport-related concussion. The goal of this pilot study was to examine the feasibility and preliminary efficacy of three aerobic exercise prescription methods in a general adult population. DESIGN: This pilot study involves three cohorts of participants, including a nested randomized component. Participants who were not in the nested randomized component were followed regularly by the clinic physician ("usual care"). Participants in the nested randomized component were randomly assigned to either "exercise testing + usual care" or "exercise testing + individualized prescription." All randomized participants completed a Buffalo Concussion Treadmill Test. Exercise testing + usual care received usual care aerobic exercise recommendations, while exercise testing + individualized prescription received an individualized prescription based on their Buffalo Concussion Treadmill Test performance. RESULTS: Seventy-five participants were included in this analysis. There was an observed longer time to recovery of usual care compared to exercise testing ( P = 0.046). There was no significant difference in time to recovery between exercise testing + usual care and exercise testing + individualized prescription ( P = 0.35). CONCLUSIONS: Supervised initiation of aerobic exercise early after concussion appears to be feasible and improve outcomes compared to standard exercise recommendations. Individualized aerobic exercise prescription offered no additional recovery benefit in this sample; however, this finding is likely underpowered because of a small sample.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".