Hypertension Analysis of Stress Reduction Using Mindfulness Meditation and Yoga: Results From the Harmony Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The HARMONY study was a randomized, controlled trial examining the efficacy of an 8-week mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) program for blood pressure (BP) lowering among unmedicated stage 1 hypertensive participants. METHODS: Participants diagnosed with stage 1 hypertension based on ambulatory BP were randomized to either immediate treatment of MBSR for 8 weeks or wait-list control. Primary outcome analysis evaluated whether change in awake and 24-hour ambulatory BP from baseline to week 12 was significantly different between the 2 groups. A within-group before and after MBSR analysis was also performed. RESULTS: The study enrolled 101 adults (38% male) with baseline average 24-hour ambulatory BP of 135±7.9/82±5.8mm Hg and daytime ambulatory BP of 140±7.7/87±6.3 mmHg. At week 12, the change from baseline in 24-hour ambulatory BP was 0.4±6.7/0.0±4.9mm Hg for the immediate intervention and 0.4±7.8/-0.4±4.6mm Hg for the wait-list control. There were no significant differences between intervention and wait-list control for all ambulatory BP parameters. The secondary within-group analysis found a small reduction in BP after MBSR compared with baseline, a finding limited to female subjects in a sex analysis. CONCLUSIONS: MBSR did not lower ambulatory BP by a statistically or clinically significant amount in untreated, stage 1 hypertensive patients when compared with a wait-list control group. It leaves untested whether MBSR might be useful for lowering BP by improving adherence in treated hypertensive participants. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT00825526.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".