Effect of yoga on health-related outcomes in people at risk of fractures: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We summarized the effects of yoga on health-related outcomes and adverse events in men and postmenopausal women ≥50 years-old at increased risk of fracture, to inform the updated Osteoporosis Canada clinical practice guidelines. Six databases were searched for observational studies, randomized controlled trials and case series. Certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation handbook. Nine studies were included and reported using narrative syntheses due to the limited available evidence. Overall, the available evidence was of very low certainty. There was no effect of yoga on health-related quality of life in randomized trials. Effects on other health-related outcomes were mixed or not available in the literature. Five studies reported no adverse events directly related to the study intervention, and 2 studies did not report whether adverse events occurred. However, 2 case series reported vertebral fractures related to yoga participation, possibly due to excessive spinal flexion. Due to the limited and very low certainty evidence, guideline developers will need to draw indirect evidence from yoga studies among middle aged or older adults that are not at fracture risk. PROSPERO: CRD42019124898. Novelty: Evidence in general was of very low certainty. Yoga had no effect on health-related quality of life in randomized trials. Evidence was mixed or unavailable for other outcomes. Case studies reported yoga poses involving spinal flexion coincided with incidents of vertebral compression fracture among older adults with increased fracture risk.
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 | 0.008 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".