Yoga versus iPad active control for fatigue in paediatric cancer therapy: a randomised controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to determine if individualised yoga for hospitalised children receiving intensive chemotherapy was associated with less fatigue using the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory Multidimensional Fatigue Scale (PedsQL MFS) compared with iPad control. METHODS: This was a multicentre randomised controlled trial of individualised yoga in paediatric patients aged 8-18 years who were inpatients receiving intensive chemotherapy for leukaemia, lymphoma or haematopoietic cell transplantation. Participants were randomised to yoga or iPad groups; allocated programme was delivered individually by trained yoga instructors 5 days/week for 21 days. The primary outcome was day 21 guardian-reported general fatigue using the PedsQL MFS. Secondary outcomes included day 21 PedsQL sleep/rest and cognitive fatigue, Fatigue Scale and PedsQL Acute Cancer Module, and systemic opioid administration. RESULTS: The study was closed early for poor accrual when 125/210 planned participants had been enrolled and randomised to yoga (n=62) or iPad (n=63). Guardian-reported PedsQL MFS general fatigue scores on day 21 were not significantly different between groups (adjusted difference 7.2, 95% CI -2.6 to 16.9) in favour of yoga. However, day 21 cognitive fatigue (adjusted difference 9.0, 95% CI 0.9 to 17.1), cognitive problems (adjusted difference 11.2, 95% CI 3.5 to 19.0) and communication (adjusted difference 10.6, 95% CI 0.8 to 20.4) were significantly better in the yoga compared with the iPad group. There were no significant differences in the other secondary outcomes including PedsQL sleep/rest fatigue (adjusted difference 4.9, 95% CI -3.5 to 13.3). CONCLUSIONS: The effect of individualised yoga on general fatigue is uncertain in paediatric patients receiving intensive chemotherapy. However, yoga significantly improved cognitive fatigue and cognitive problems. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02134782.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".