Benefits of meditation and breathing exercises in vision loss patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vision impairment could have debilitating effects on patients’ mental, physical, and emotional health. Our study aims to understand the role of meditation and breathing exercises in the management of vision loss and its effects on patient’s disease progression. This study is designed as a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eligible studies were retrieved from MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL databases and gray literature. Covidence software was used to conduct the systematic review. Duplicate records were removed, and two independent reviewers screened records for relevance. After the screening, a risk-of-bias assessment was carried out. Data were extracted, and a meta-analysis was performed using STATA 14.0. Fixed-effect and random-effect models were computed based on heterogeneity. Our results indicate that meditation and breathing exercises significantly reduce intraocular pressure (IOP) (ES = −1.76, 95% CI = [−2.69, −0.83]) in glaucoma patients, mean deviation of Humphrey visual field testing (ES = −0.20, 95% CI = [−0.37, −0.03]), and biomarkers such as cortisol (ES = −0.73, 95% CI = [−0.25, −2.22]) and reactive oxygen species (ES = −2.45, 95% CI = [−4.20, −0.71]). In addition, our results demonstrated significant increases in beta-endorphins (ES = 28.60, 95% CI = [25.61, 31.59]) following breathing and meditation exercises. Furthermore, our study demonstrated that these exercises were associated with non-significant decreases in inflammatory markers, such as interleukin-6 levels (ES = −1.25, 95% CI = [−2.75, −0.24]), retinal nerve layer fiber thickness (ES = −0.20, 95% CI = [−0.53, −0.14]), and non-significant increase in brain-derived neurotrophic factor (ES = 28.24, 95% CI = [−25.24, 81.71]). Our systematic review also found improvements in quality of life, physical fitness, and mood for vision loss patients. Meditation and breathing exercises offer a range of benefits to patients with vision loss, including improvements in IOP, biomarkers, quality of life, physical fitness, and mood. Further research is needed to better understand the mechanisms underlying their effects and the means to apply them in practice.
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 | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".