Comparison of Yoga Asana along with Aerobic Exercise and Aerobic Exercise alone for Dysmenorrhea among College Students with Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Dysmenorrhea is a distressing sensory and emotional experience that occurs usually in the region ofthe lower abdomen. Polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) is the syndrome in which the ovaries create excessiveproduction of androgens that are typically present in women at a minimal level. This study compares the effectof yoga on PCOS with dysmenorrhea in women of reproductive age using the McGill pain questionnaire andWaLIDD score.Purpose: The purpose of the study is to determine the effectiveness of aerobic exercise and yoga asana fordysmenorrhea among college students with polycystic ovarian syndrome.Materials and Methods: This experimental study has been conducted from December 2022 to May 2023 whichincluded 150 girls (18 to 25 years old) who were screened for PCOS and 98 girls who willingly filled out a Googleform to the female college students, Based on the inclusion criteria, 50 people took part and were separated intotwo groups: one group is given aerobic exercise with yoga, while the other group is given only an aerobic exercise.The treatment is for 60 minutes and 5 days per week is given and continued for 12 weeks. The pre-test and posttestwere taken. The values were tabulated and statically evaluated.Result: the results revealed that the addition of yoga along with aerobic exercise results in 70-80% of the womenbeing beneficial for managing the dysmenorrhea and PCOS which are statistically significant with a p value of0.0001.Conclusion: The study shows that yoga asana with aerobic exercise for PCOS students is more beneficial inlowering the risk of dysmenorrhea than aerobic exercise alone.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".