Symptom reduction in kidney transplant patients from 20-minute mindful breathing: a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many kidney transplant recipients continue to be affected by multiple symptoms even after their transplant. Mindfulness may be helpful to alleviate some of the symptoms. OBJECTIVES: Our current study aimed to determine the efficacy of a single session of 20-minute mindful breathing in alleviating multiple symptoms in kidney transplant patients. METHODS: Adult kidney transplant patients with at least one symptom scoring ≥ 4/10 based on the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) were recruited from November 2020 to May 2021. Participants were randomly assigned to either 20-minute mindful breathing or control. RESULTS: Sixty participants were recruited and randomly assigned to intervention (N = 30) or control (N = 30). There was statistically significant greater reduction of the total ESAS score in the intervention group compared with the control group (mean difference = -4.833, confidence interval = -7.837, -1.830, t = -3.251, p = 0002). CONCLUSION: Our results provided evidence that 20-minute mindful breathing could reduce multiple symptoms rapidly in kidney transplant recipients.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.011 | 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".