The Influence of a Multimodal Health Program with Diet, Art, and Biofield Therapy on the Quality of Life of People in Japan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether the frequency of the practice of each of diet, art, and biofield therapy influences improvement in quality of life (QOL), and to examine whether the simultaneous practice of all three components increasingly improves QOL in a real-world setting. DESIGN: Pre-post-test design using convenience sampling methods. SETTING: Home setting. SUBJECTS: A total of 4681 individuals aged 16 years or older who answered the questionnaire appropriately. INTERVENTION: Participants agreed to practice the three components daily and self-evaluated the frequency of their weekly practice for three consecutive months. At the beginning and end of the study, they completed the MOA quality-of-life questionnaire (10-item MOA quality-of-life questionnaire [MQL-10]). OUTCOME MEASURES: Factors associated with the increase in MQL-10 scores for each component, and the relationship between the simultaneous practice of multiple components and the changes in MQL-10 scores were analyzed. RESULTS: Frequent practice of the diet and/or art components was associated with an increase in the term-end MQL-10 score (p < 0.001); however, receiving biofield therapy frequently was not. Participants' age, gender, and qualification as a practitioner of biofield therapy had no relationship with changes in scores, but the reasons for participation had a significant influence on changes in scores (p < 0.001). Participants who initially did not practice any components frequently but who subsequently increased the number of components and frequency of each practice had a higher likelihood of exhibiting an increase in the term-end score (p < 0.01). Participants who initially practiced all three components frequently but later decreased the number of components practiced frequently had a lower chance of increase and a higher risk of decrease in scores (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The data suggest that the frequent practice of the diet and art components is associated with improvement in QOL. Simultaneous practice of diet, art, and biofield therapy is more likely to improve QOL. ( ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01927250).
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".