MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413052192 · doi:10.2196/81122

Correction: Breath-Focused Mindfulness and Compassion Training in Parent-Child Dyads: Pilot Intervention Study

2025· article· en· W4413052192 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Satish Jaiswal, Jason Nan, Seth Dizon, Jessica O Young, Suzanna Purpura, James Manchanda, Dhakshin Ramanathan, Dennis John Kuo, Jyoti Mishra

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicInfant Health and Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMindfulnessCompassionIntervention (counseling)PsychologyPsychotherapistClinical psychologyParent trainingDevelopmental psychologyPsychiatryPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Depression in children is a concerning societal issue and can be associated with poor academic performance, school dropout, and poor overall quality of life. Additionally, child depression is often associated with parallel stress and depression in parents. This scenario highlights the urgent need for the development and implementation of accessible and scalable solutions that may cobenefit child and parent mental well-being. This pilot study introduced “Cooperative Compassion” (CoCo), a parent-child cotraining digital application aimed at promoting mindfulness and compassion through brief, performance-adaptive sessions. A community sample of 24 parent-child dyads (children’s mean age 9.5, SD 3.27 years; female: n=14, male: n=10; Asian: n=5, White: n=11, mixed race: n=7, other race: n=1; and parents’ mean age 44.5, SD 6.5 years; 20 female: n=20, male: n=4; Asian: n=8, White: n=14, mixed race: n=2) of high average affluence socioeconomic scores participated in the study. These parent-child dyads completed 30 sessions of CoCo training over 3 months with baseline and postintervention assessments occurring within 2 weeks of training initiation or completion, respectively. The program was feasible, with 80% (n=19) of families completing over 90% (n=22) of sessions and providing positive feedback. Mental health assessments showed a nonsignificant effect in the expected direction in children’s depression scores (Cohen d=−0.19; 95% CI −8.89 to 1.74; P=.07) and significant reductions in parental stress (d=−0.41; 95% CI −2.63 to −0.16; P=.02), anxiety (d=−0.47; 95% CI −2.67 to −0.20; P=.02), and depression (d=−0.50; 95% CI −3.25 to −0.08; P=.03), with sustained benefits at the 3-month follow-up. Parental mindfulness improvements were correlated with stress reduction (ρ=−0.45; P=.03). On an emotion bias task used as an objective assessment of cognition, children demonstrated improved processing speed after the intervention (d=0.54; 95% CI 0.012-0.083; P=.005), and a marginal improvement was also observed in parents (d=0.19; 95% CI −0.004 to 0.030; P=.05). Cortical source imaging of electroencephalographic recordings was acquired simultaneous to an attention-to-breathing assessment that showed significant reduction in task-related default mode network activity (d=−0.62; 95% CI −0.0096 to −0.0002; P=.01). Post-CoCo intervention decrease in default mode network activity on the attention-to-breath task in parent-child dyads may be indicative of cortical plasticity reflecting reduced mind-wandering and thereby, enhanced focus after training. The current promising behavioral and cognitive results suggest the need for a larger sample size and a randomized controlled study design. Overall, these findings highlight the potential for brief, digital mindfulness and compassion cotraining to improve family mental health and well-being. International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number Registry ISRCTN89594822; https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN89594822

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.058
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.087

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.058
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0260.012

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.

Opus teacher head0.155
GPT teacher head0.523
Teacher spread0.368 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative ResearchSame topicInfant Health and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207