A Parent–child yoga intervention for reducing attention deficits in children with congenital heart disease: the Yoga for Little Hearts Feasibility Study Protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Preschoolers and school-aged children with congenital heart disease (CHD) are at higher risk of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) compared with the general population. To this day, no randomised controlled trial (RCT) aiming to improve attention has been conducted in young children with CHD. There is emerging evidence indicating that parent-child yoga interventions improve attention and reduce ADHD symptoms in both typically developing and clinical populations. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a single-blind, two-centre, two-arm trial during which 24 children with CHD and their parents will be randomly assigned to (1) a parent-child yoga intervention in addition to standard clinical care or (2) standard clinical care alone. All participants will undergo standardised assessments: (1) at baseline, (2) immediately post-treatment and (3) 6 months post-treatment. Descriptive statistics will be used to estimate the feasibility and neurodevelopmental outcomes. This feasibility study will evaluate: (1) recruitment capacity; (2) retention, drop-out and withdrawal rates during the yoga programme and at the 6-month follow-up; (3) adherence to the intervention; (4) acceptability of the randomisation process by families; (5) heterogeneity in the delivery of the intervention between instructors and use of home-based exercises between participants; (6) proportion of missing data in the neurodevelopmental assessments and (7) SD of primary outcomes of the full RCT in order to determine the future appropriate sample size. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been obtained by the Research Ethics Board of the Sainte-Justine University Hospital. The findings will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and conferences and presented to the Canadian paediatric grand round meetings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05997680.
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 | 0.014 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.052 | 0.009 |
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".