(PM-23) YOGA PRACTICE INTERVENTION AS A COMPLEMENTARY AND INTEGRATIVE TREATMENT FOR COMPULSIVE SEXUAL BEHAVIOR DISORDER: A PILOT STUDY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective Investigate the feasibility of a Yoga Practice intervention (YPI) as an integrative treatment for adult men with compulsive sexual behavior disorder (CSBD) explored through the attendance and adherence treatment protocol, and the functionality of data collection mechanisms. Methods For this study, twelve men diagnosed with CSBD and that did not present substance-use, paraphilic, psychotic, current manic or hypomanic, neurocognitive disorders, gender dysphoria, physical limitations, already practiced yoga or started psychotherapy more than six months ago were randomized in a 2-arm, double-blind clinical trial, comparing a Kundalini YPI with a supervised muscle stretching 12-week program. Participants submitted their applications online on baseline, times 1 (4 weeks), 2 (8 weeks) and time 3 (12 weeks) and the proportion of treatment and protocol adherence, teacher adherence, and allocation concealment were estimated. Results The age range was 24 to 47 years old. 58% were single or widower, 41% married or common-law; 75% were caucasians and 25% afro-descendants. The minimum schooling was elementary, (50% finished college). Average family income was $ 1130. There was no statistically significant association between sociodemographic and intervention groups. The patient attendance was 58%, patient adherence to the protocol 30%, professors' adherence to the protocol reached 100%, and the allocation concealment for the double-blind method ensured 100%. The answers of the self-responsive online questionnaires on psychopathologic variables reached 87% of the requested answers, and the daily practices at home 45%. Conclusions Although the YPI evaluated for CSBD was acceptable and functional, this pilot indicates changes in procedures to improve attendance and adherence of patients. Financing No conflict.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".