MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7110968175 · doi:10.1080/23311908.2025.2597724

Bayesian modeling of heartbeat evoked potentials (HEP) and heart rate variability (HRV) as biomarkers of spiritual and mental wellbeing; an exploratory study

2025· article· en· W7110968175 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueCogent Psychology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Rate Variability and Autonomic Control
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeart rate variabilityPsychophysiologyBayesian probabilityExploratory researchHeartbeatInclusion (mineral)Heart rateSubjective well-beingBayesian inferenceProbabilistic logic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Spiritual and mental wellbeing are vital to health. Identification of their psychophysiological correlates enables their evidence-based integration into clinical therapeutics. We applied Bayesian modeling to assess HEPs and HRV as potential biomarkers of spiritual and mental wellbeing as it provides a flexible probabilistic approach. In this cross-sectional study, n = 30 adults completed spiritual (SIWB) and mental (WEMWBS) wellbeing questionnaires, then underwent electrophysiological recordings (EO, EC) with HRV and power spectral density analysis. Influence of difference of HEP and HRV on spiritual and mental wellbeing was analyzed. Bayesian regression identified the combined ΔHEP1 + ΔHEP3 model as the best predictor of spiritual well-being (BF10 = 8.75; R2 = 0.36), where strongest inclusion probability was observed for ΔHEP at Fz (Pincl =0.723), followed by ΔHEP at F7 (Pincl =0.617), with uncertain CrIs (95% CrI [−2.01, 0.05] and CrI [−0.62, 0.01] respectively) providing moderate-to-strong evidence for their inclusion. ΔHEP at F8 showed the strongest inclusion probability (P(incl|data) = 0.64; BF(inclusion) = 1.80), with posterior mean of 0.52 and a 95% CrI spanning [0.00, 1.61]. Demographic factors did not influence SIWB or WEMWBS scores. Bayesian model indicates that HEP can serve as a valuable tool to study psychophysiological modulation in spiritual and psychological interventions.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.309 · 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 designObservational
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 venueCogent PsychologySame topicHeart Rate Variability and Autonomic ControlFrench-language works237,207