Cognitive, physical, and psychological benefits of yoga for acquired brain injuries: A systematic review of recent findings
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
Yoga is a holistic practice that - when incorporated effectively into neurorehabilitation - has potential to meet the complex needs of persons with acquired brain injury (ABI). This systematic review, conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines, investigated cognitive, physical, and psychological outcomes following controlled trials of yoga for ABI. The search returned six eligible studies, four of which focused specifically on stroke rehabilitation. For persons with ABI broadly, within-group improvements were found after yoga for psychological and physical adjustment, quality of life, and respiratory functioning. For stroke specifically, physical and memory recovery was greater in the yoga group vs. exercise control, and within-group improvements were noted for motor functioning, self-efficacy, and quality of life outcomes. Lack of (1) between-group analyses despite the inclusion of control groups, and (2) a common yoga rehabilitation protocol including frequency, length, and duration of yoga must be addressed in future research to establish efficacy of these interventions. Considerations for psychophysiological outcome measures and cultural factors are presented in the context of future research and clinical directions.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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