Mind–body therapies and their interplay with the immune system in children and adolescents: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chronic inflammation is a critical public health concern that, in children and adolescents, increases the long-term risk of a variety of different health issues. While mind-body therapies like yoga, meditation, and acupuncture have shown promise in modulating immune responses in adults, their safety and effectiveness in pediatric populations remain underexplored. This protocol outlines the methodology for a systematic review and meta-analysis aimed at evaluating the effects of mind-body therapies on immune modulation in children and adolescents. METHODS: This systematic review and meta-analysis will follow PRISMA 2020 guidelines. We will include randomized controlled trials, non-randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and case-control studies that examine the relationship between mind-body therapies and immune markers in pediatric populations. Electronic searches will be conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library, supplemented by trial registries. Risk of bias will be assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool (RoB 1), the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I), and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Two independent reviewers will screen studies, extract data, and assess study quality, with a third reviewer resolving any discrepancies. Results will be synthesized both narratively and through meta-analysis using R software. DISCUSSION: The review will evaluate the effectiveness and safety of mind-body therapies on immune markers in children and adolescents. The synthesized evidence will guide clinical practice and public health policies in integrating mind-body therapies into pediatric care. The findings will also provide a foundation for future research and policymaking in this area. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42024546585.
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 | 0.096 | 0.139 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.031 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.056 | 0.007 |
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".