Effects of Tai Chi and Qi Gong group class participation on self-reported symptoms in cancer patients and caregivers: A preliminary report.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
100 Background: Tai chi and qi gong are movement-based, mind-body approaches offered as part of an integrative oncology program at a comprehensive cancer center. We explored the effects of tai chi and qi gong group class participation on cancer patient and caregiver self-reported symptoms. Methods: Patients and caregivers attending a tai chi and/or qi gong group class completed the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) immediately before and after participation. The ESAS assessed 10 symptoms (scale 0-10, 10 worst possible); ESAS subscales analyzed included global (GDS), physical (PHS), and psychosocial (PSS). Descriptive statistics; Chi-Squared test, Fisher’s exact test, Wilcoxon rank-sum test and Wilcoxon signed-rank test were used for data analysis. Results: 304 participants (Oct 2017-April 2019; 184 patients, 120 caregivers; 72% women, 60% white; mean age 58) were included in the analysis. For patients (symptom reduction by class type: tai chi -4.5 SD 7.6; qi gong -6.1 SD 7.9) and caregivers (tai chi -3.7 SD 6.3; qi gong -4.0 SD 7.8), both class types contributed to clinically and statistically significant improvement (ESAS GDS decrease ≥3; p’s ≤0.0001) in global distress. Patients (-2.07 SD 5.49) and caregivers (-2.34 SD 3.71) participating in tai chi experienced clinically and statistically significant improvement in physical distress (ESAS PHS decrease ≥2; p’s ≤0.0001). For the individual symptom of well-being, we observed clinically and statistically significant improvement for caregivers participating in qi gong (-1.2 SD 2) and patients participating in tai chi (-1.0 SD 1.8) (p’s ≤0.0001). For fatigue, patients (-1.4) and caregivers (-1.0) participating in qi gong experienced clinically and statistically significant improvement (p’s ≤0.0001). Conclusions: Patients and caregivers participating in both class types experienced significant improvement in physical and global distress. Additional research is warranted to learn more about how differences in class content (tai chi vs qi gong) and participants may contribute to observed differences in symptom change.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".