Breathing-focused Yoga as Augmentation for Unipolar and Bipolar Depression: A Randomized Controlled Trial: Le yoga axé sur la respiration comme traitement d’appoint pour la dépression unipolaire et bipolaire: Un essai randomisé contrôlé
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Patients with depression frequently experience persistent residual symptoms even with optimal interventions. These patients often use complementary treatments, including yoga, as a preferred alternative or adjunctive treatment. There is evidence for the benefit of yoga for depression, but this has not been rigorously evaluated, particularly in bipolar depression. We aimed to determine the feasibility and benefit of manualized breathing-focused yoga in comparison to psychoeducation as augmentation to pharmacotherapy for improving residual symptoms of depression in unipolar and bipolar patients. METHODS: Using a randomized single-blind crossover design, 72 outpatients with unipolar or bipolar depression were augmented with the two 8-week interventions at separate times, as add-ons to current first-line antidepressants and mood stabilizers. The primary outcome measure was the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). Due to the high dropout of participants after crossover at Week 8, analysis focused on between-group comparisons of yoga and psychoeducation during the initial 8 weeks of the study. RESULTS: There was a significant decline in depressive symptoms, as measured by the MADRS, following 8 weeks of yoga. However, there was no significant difference in MADRS ratings between intervention groups. Similar improvements in self-rated depressive symptoms and well-being were also observed across time. CONCLUSIONS: Both yoga and psychoeducation may improve residual symptoms of unipolar and bipolar depression as add-on to medications. In-class group sessions and long study durations may reduce feasibility for this population. Larger trials with parallel group design and shorter duration may be more feasible.
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 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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".