MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4254467287 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14663457.v1

Evaluating the effects of mindfulness-based stress reduction on cognitive function and quality of life in nondemented older adults : a pilot study

2021· preprint· en· W4254467287 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sasha Mallya

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMindfulness and Compassion Interventions
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMindfulnessMindfulness-based stress reductionQuality of life (healthcare)PsychologyMoodPerceived Stress ScaleClinical psychologyCognitionStress reductionPopulationStress (linguistics)MedicinePsychiatryPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Adults over the age of 65 years are now the fastest growing segment of the Canadian population. Although individual differences exist, aging is commonly associated with impairments in executive function. The present pilot study investigated the effectiveness of a mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) program on improving executive functioning in older adults, while additionally decreasing perceived stress and improving psychological wellbeing. It was hypothesized that compared with an active control group, the MBSR group would display significant improvements in executive functioning, mood, self-esteem, and perceived stress. Participants were randomly assigned to either MBSR (n=40) or an active control group (n=32). Results suggest that MBSR is associated with significantly enhanced quality of life compared with the control condition. No additional significant results were found. A full-scale study will be necessary to clarify the present results.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.108
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.316 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMindfulness and Compassion Interventions→French-language works237,207→