EFFICACY OF PRANAYAMIC BREATHING ON COGNITION AND INSTRUMENTAL ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVING IN TYPE2 DIABETES MELLITUS.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Type 2 diabetes is inherent in poor physical performance and cognitive functions that affect patients' overall performance in their activities of daily living (ADL) (Lindsay et al., 2016) . Diabetes and cognitive dysfunction are linked, according to epidemiological evidence. When compared to adults without type 2 diabetes, adults who develop type 2 diabetes later in life have cognitive decits; psychomotor productivity, executive function, and learning and memory skills are often the most affected(Wrighten et al., 2009; Okereke, 2008.).So this study aims to investigate the. efcacy of pranayamic breathing on cognition and Instrumental Activities of Daily living (IADL) in type2 diabetes mellitus.(DM). Thirty type2 Diabetic patients between 45-65 years of age were selected randomly and were divided into two groups. Group A received pranayama breathing with conventional physiotherapy for 5 days a week for 4 weeks. Group B received conventional physiotherapy. Montreal cognitive assessment scale (MoCA) and Functional activities questionnaire (FAQ) were reported to determine cognition and IADL.Between group comparison of MOCAshowed that the paired difference obtained from pretest to post test in the experimental group was 3.80±0.862 and in the conventional group 1.13±0.352, the effect size was 4.05 and this observed difference was statistically signicant (p<0.001). Between group comparison of FAQ says that the paired difference obtained was 3.33±0.816 for experimental group and 1.80±1.47 for control group. The effect size observed was 1.28 and it was statistically signicant (p=0.002).The ndings of the study show that there is signicant difference between the scores of two groups which concludes , pranayama breathing with conventional physiotherapy has shown signicant improvement in cognition and Instrumental Activities of daily living among Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus..
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".