Yoga in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: Results of a Pragmatic Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the feasibility and potential benefits of initiating a yoga program adapted for persons with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Methods: We conducted a pragmatic trial of standard treatment (control group) or standard treatment plus yoga classes (intervention group) in persons with SLE. The intervention consisted of 16 yoga classes over an eight-week period. Evaluation of feasibility and benefits included measurements of compliance and results of post-intervention surveys and focus group discussions following completion of the yoga intervention. Results: The average age was 38.6±12.6, 96% were female, the mean SLE disease duration was 9.8±7.9 years, and mean SLE Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI-2K) score was 4.0±4.0. There were no significant differences between baseline characteristics between the groups. In the yoga intervention group, class attendance averaged 63% (range 39-87%); home practice averaged 1.2±1.3 hours/week. Results of post intervention surveys and focus group discussions indicated that all participants who had received the yoga intervention experienced improvement in physical and psychological well-being, including improvement in stress and pain management, improved sleep quality and decreased fatigue. Participants expressed satisfaction with the yoga program and recommended longer and more frequent classes. All yoga participants voiced interest in continuing the adapted program but were hesitant to try programs not tailored for chronic diseases like SLE. Conclusions: Our adapted yoga program was well tolerated and positive effects were experienced. The results suggest that an adapted yoga program provides persons with SLE with an opportunity to experience yoga and its accompanying benefits. Keywords: Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE), yoga, intervention. Read more →
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 | 0.015 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 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".