A pilot study of yoga for breast cancer survivors: physical and psychological benefits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: 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 7-week yoga program for cancer survivors. METHOD: Eligible participants (per-screened with PAR-Q/PAR-MED-X) were randomly assigned to either the intervention (n=20) or control group (n=18). All participants completed pre- and post-testing assessments immediately before and after the yoga program, respectively. RESULTS: 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 and the control group at post-intervention were seen only in psychosocial (i.e. global quality of life, emotional function, and diarrhea) variables (all p's <0.05). There were also trends for group differences, in the hypothesized directions, for the psychosocial variables of emotional irritability, gastrointestinal symptoms, cognitive disorganization, mood disturbance, tension, depression, and confusion (all p's <0.10). Finally, there were also significant improvements in both the program participants and the controls from pre- to post-intervention on a number of physical fitness variables. CONCLUSIONS: 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, male subjects), a larger sample size, and a longer program duration in an RCT.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".