Effect of Multivitamin and Mineral Supplementation on Episodes of Infection in Nursing Home Residents: A Randomized, Placebo‐Controlled Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of vitamin and mineral supplementation on infections in an elderly institutionalized population. DESIGN: Eighteen-month, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. SETTING: Twenty-one long-term care facilities. PARTICIPANTS: Seven hundred sixty-three subjects from 21 long-term care facilities. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomized to receive one multivitamin and mineral supplementation daily or placebo. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was number of infections per subject. Secondary outcomes were antibiotic use and hospitalization rates. Infection control surveillance was conducted over 18 months using standardized criteria. RESULTS: Outcome data from 748 subjects, mean age 85, were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Using univariate analyses, there was no difference in infectious episodes between the supplemented and placebo groups (3.5 infections per 1,000 resident-days vs 3.8 infections per 1,000 resident-days, odds ratio (OR)=0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.82-1.03, P=.12). There was a reduction in antibiotic usage in the supplementation group, but this was not significant in the multivariate model. There was no difference in the number of hospital visits. In the multivariate analysis, the effect of multivitamin use on total number of infections was not significant (OR=0.77, 95% CI=0.54-1.1). Subjects without dementia had a greater rate of infections than those with dementia (OR=1.44, 95% CI=1.19-1.76). In post hoc subgroup analysis, subjects without dementia who received supplementation had a significantly lower rate of infections than those who received placebo (relative risk=0.81, 95% CI=0.66-0.99). CONCLUSION: Overall, multivitamin and mineral supplementation does not have a significant effect on the incidence of infections in institutionalized seniors, although the subgroup of residents in long-term care without dementia may benefit from supplementation. Further research is needed to determine its effect in high-risk subgroups within the nursing home population.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".