Insufficient evidence to conclude whether or not Transcendental Meditation decreases blood pressure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To carry out an independent, systematic review of randomized clinical trials of Transcendental Meditation (TM) for cumulative effects on blood pressure. METHOD: Searches were made of electronic databases and the collected papers and official web sites of the TM organization. We included only randomized clinical trials, without confounding co-interventions, which measured the cumulative effects of TM on blood pressure. RESULTS: Six trials met the inclusion criteria but one, reported only in abstract form, could not be evaluated. Procedures for establishing baseline blood pressure were adequate in only one trial. Only one of the trials included a follow-on assessment and only one of the evaluable trials tested the effect of TM in hypertensive individuals. Three of the five evaluable trials reported statistically significant differences between intervention groups favouring TM and two found no significant differences between intervention groups. None of the five studies was conducted by independent authors without any affiliation to the TM organization. CONCLUSION: All the randomized clinical trials of TM for the control of blood pressure published to date have important methodological weaknesses and are potentially biased by the affiliation of authors to the TM organization. There is at present insufficient good-quality evidence to conclude whether or not TM has a cumulative positive effect on blood pressure.
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 | 0.036 | 0.136 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".