Feasibility of a remotely-delivered yoga intervention on cognitive function in breast cancer survivors: a mixed-methods study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Cancer-related cognitive impairment (CRCI) is a common, persistent quality of life complaint among breast cancer survivors (BCS), however there remain no proven treatments. There is emerging evidence that aerobic exercise and yoga may improve CRCI. There remains limited research on the safety and feasibility of virtually-supervised, remotely-delivered yoga interventions among cancer survivors, and no yoga studies to date have assessed cognitive function as a primary outcome in BCS. The purpose of this study was to explore the feasibility of an 8-week, remotely-delivered yoga intervention and examine its impact on cognitive function, fatigue, and exercise levels in BCS using a concurrent mixed-methods design. Methods Participants completed objective and self-report cognitive function measures (NIH Toolbox remote cognitive battery, PsyToolkit Task Switch test, Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Cognitive Function [FACT-Cog3]); fatigue (Revised-Piper Fatigue Scale); and exercise activity level (modified Godin Leisure Time Exercise Questionnaire) before and after the yoga intervention. Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted post-intervention to understand participants' experiences with the yoga intervention, CRCI, and fatigue. Results The intervention surpassed a priori feasibility indicators (adherence rate = 83.7%, attrition rate = 5.4%, no adverse events). Participants ( n = 18, M age = 52.2 ± 10.1) had significant improvements in objective memory, fatigue, and weekly minutes of moderate-to-vigorous exercise post-intervention. Qualitative themes indicated that participants found the remote intervention to be enjoyable and beneficial. Conclusions In this small proof-of-concept study, remotely-delivered yoga appears safe and effective at improving CRCI. Future randomized controlled trials examining the impact of remotely-delivered yoga interventions on cognitive function in BCS are warranted.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".