MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417088379 · doi:10.1186/s13643-025-03004-w

A systematic review protocol for slow-paced breathing in healthy populations: Impacts on cognition and insights into mechanisms of action

2025· review· en· W4417088379 on OpenAlexafffund
Sadhna D. Ramquar, Chayanika Tyagi, Bhanu Sharma, Cynthia Chui, Arzu S. Wasti, Robin Green

Bibliographic record

VenueSystematic Reviews · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience of respiration and sleep
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityMcMaster UniversityToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of Toronto
FundersBranch Out Neurological FoundationMitacs
KeywordsCognitionProtocol (science)Action (physics)BreathingMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Slow-paced breathing (SPB) has emerged as an intervention to improve cognitive function and prevent cognitive decline. The proposed systematic review aims to consolidate previous literature examining the impacts of SPB across cognitive subdomains when compared to passive and active controls in adults, as well as the mechanisms involved. METHODS: Literature searches will be conducted in MEDLINE(R) ALL, Embase Classic + Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PsycINFO, CINAHL Ultimate, and Web of Science. Gray literature sources include preprints and clinical trial registries. Citation tracking will be used as a supplemental search method. RCTs, quasi-randomized trials, and non-randomized interventions with a control or comparison group focused on adult human participants will be included. Studies on pediatric populations or animals will be excluded. The primary outcomes are standardized cognitive test scores and test batteries. Data on the parameters of SPB protocols will also be collected to gain insight into the mechanisms driving observed cognitive changes. Two independent reviewers will blindly complete citation screening, data extraction, risk-of-bias assessment using Covidence, and appraisal of study quality using GRADEpro. Risk of bias will be assessed for non-randomized controlled trials and RCTs using the ROBINS-I and RoB tools, respectively. A narrative synthesis of the findings will be conducted. Results will be stratified based on methodological features such as study design, population demographics, intervention parameters, and cognitive domain. If the data of the included literature permit, a meta-analysis will be performed to compare improvements by (i) cognitive domain, (ii) population demographics, and (iii) parameters of intervention protocols (e.g., duration of inhalation vs. exhalation). DISCUSSION: SPB is a promising intervention for conferring generalizable cognitive improvements. This review will consolidate early findings, give insight into SPB's efficacy as a clinical intervention, and lay the groundwork for future research into mechanisms and optimal parameters. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42024615253.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.219
GPT teacher head0.469
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSystematic ReviewsSame topicNeuroscience of respiration and sleepFrench-language works237,207