Effects of alternate nostril breathing exercise on cardiac functions in healthy young adults leading a stressful lifestyle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alternate nostril breathing (ANB) is one of the best and easiest breathing exercises. ANB exercise has beneficial effects on cardiac function in healthy and diseased people. The objectives of this study were to assess the effects of ANB exercise on cardiac physiology among healthy medical students. This was a prospective interventional study that was conducted in the Department of Physiology, Chittagong Medical College (CMC), Chattogram, Bangladesh, from July 2017 to June 2018. A total of 100 research participants (RPs) aged 18–20 years, Year-I medical students of CMC, were selected. A simple random sampling method was adopted. The selection was done after the inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied. The age and body mass index (BMI) of the RPs were analogous in both the control and experimental groups. Cardiac parameters, like pulse and blood pressure (BP), were measured. The initial baseline data were recorded for both groups and after 4 weeks. The research respondents of the experimental group performed ANB exercise for 4 weeks. The mean value pulse and BP were significantly (p < 0.001) changed after breathing exercise, compared to the values before the breathing exercise. The results of this study suggest that cardiac function significantly improves after the breathing exercise. Therefore, ANB can be recommended for increasing cardiac efficiency.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".