Effects of Bhramari Pranayama on health – A systematic review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
(Bhr.P) on health. The studies done until May 2016 were found using Medline, Embase, Google scholar and manual search. Studies conducted on the health effectiveness of Bhr.P specifically were included on the basis of prisma guidelines. The data were defined by their objectives, methodology, study setting, findings, interventions done and implications suggested in the study. Methodological Quality Rating Scale (MQRS) and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) were used in reviewing and reporting results of the included studies. 6 studies satisfied the inclusion criteria; 2 studies were done on the cold pressor test, one on heart rate and BP, one on EEG changes, one each on the inhibitory response and tinnitus condition. In the included studies, the Bhr.P practices have shown para-sympathetic dominance. There are some encouraging effects of Bhr.P on various physiological systems. Methodological quality of the included studies was evaluated to be very low and none of them were RCTs. Yet the available studies are heterogeneous, dealing in different grounds and this heterogeneity serves as a resource for the limited scope of studies on Bhr.P. Therefore, further large-scale, properly designed, randomized trials of Bhr.P on various systems have to be done to justify these effects efficiently.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 it