Exploring the Outcomes of Singing and Diaphragmatic Breathing in Participants With Asthma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated the effects of singing and/or breathing.Sixty participants with asthma partook in weekly singing (n=22), breathing (n=20) and singing and breathing (n=18) sessions over four weeks.Peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR) and forced expiratory volume during the first second (FEV1) were measured prior to and following each session, along with a breathlessness questionnaire (MBS).An asthma control questionnaire (ACQ) was completed weekly.Wellbeing measures included a psychological distress measure (GHQ) and a quality of life measure (SGRQ), completed during the first and last sessions.There was a significant improvement in MBS, PEFR, and GHQ measures over four weeks.Components of SGRQ (symptoms and impacts) also improved.There were no significant group differences in breathing or wellbeing measures.Participants enjoyed practicing more when singing was combined with breathing.While all conditions were beneficial for participants with asthma, individuals may demonstrate greater adherence to singing.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".