Meditation and yoga for irritable bowel syndrome: study protocol for a randomised clinical trial (MY-IBS study)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: When delivered in person, yoga has been shown to be effective in managing irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) symptoms. Research is needed to test the feasibility and effectiveness of yoga as a therapeutic option when delivered virtually. The primary aim of the mind and yoga for IBS randomised controlled trial is to determine the effects of an 8-week virtual meditation and yoga intervention on IBS symptom severity compared with an advice-only active control group. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Adults diagnosed with IBS will be randomised to receive either a Upa Yoga intervention or an advice-only control group. The intervention will consist of weekly online classes for 8 weeks delivered by a facilitator using Microsoft Office Teams and daily home practice. Feasibility will be evaluated by examining recruitment and attrition rates, adherence, participant satisfaction with the programme and safety. The primary outcome is IBS symptom severity, and key secondary outcomes include (but not limited to) quality of life, anxiety and depression symptoms, COVID-19-related stress and anxiety, and fatigue. Outcomes will be assessed at baseline, 4 weeks and 8 weeks. An embedded design experimental model substudy will be conducted post intervention using qualitative research methods to identify participants' experiences in the yoga programme. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by the Conjoint Health Research Ethics Board (REB ID 20-0084). Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication, conference presentation and social media. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04302623.
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 | 0.041 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.129 | 0.025 |
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".