Discovering the Physical and Psychological Benefits of Yoga for Cancer Survivors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physical activity provides a number of physical and psychological benefits to cancer survivors, including lessening the impact of detrimental cancer-related symptoms and treatment side effects (e.g., fatigue, nausea)and improving overall well-being and quality of life. The purpose of the present pilot study was to examine the physical and psychological benefits afforded by a seven-week Yoga program for cancer survivors within the framework of the theory of planned behavior. The Yoga program participants (M age=51.18 [10.33]; 92%female) included primarily breast cancer survivors, on average 55.95 (54.39) months post-diagnosis. Significant differences between the intervention group (n=20)and the control group (n=18) at post-intervention were seen in both psychosocial (i.e., global quality of life,stress, emotional function, emotional irritability, mood disturbance, tension, depression, anger, confusion) and physical (i.e., resting heart rate, cardiovascular endurance, cardiopulmonary arousal) variables (all p's<.05). There were also significant improvements(all p's<.05) in the program participants from pre- to post-intervention on a number of physical and psychosocial variables. These initial findings suggest that Yoga has significant potential and should be further explored as a beneficial physical activity option for cancer survivors. Future research might attempt to include a broader range of participants (e.g., other types of cancer diagnoses, more male subjects) in a randomized,controlled trial.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".