Yoga for Health Care in Korea: A Protocol for Systematic Review of Clinical Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This systematic review aims to evaluate the therapeutic effects of yoga therapy using an evidence-based approach and investigates the relationship between yoga and the meridian energies based on all available clinical studies in Korea. Sixteen electronic databases will be searched from the inception of the study until January 2016. All clinical evidences that evaluate any type of yoga and any type of control in individuals with any type of condition will be eligible. The methodological quality will be assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized clinical trials and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for nonrandomized studies. Two authors will independently assess each study for eligibility and the risk of bias, and then they will extract the data. With its extensive, unbiased search of the Korean literature from various databases without any language restrictions, this systematic review will be useful for both practitioners in the field of yoga research as well as for patients.
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 | 0.120 | 0.125 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.018 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.056 | 0.009 |
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".