Vitamin D as a Neuroactive Substance: Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objectives of this paper were (1) to review recent research on the actions of vitamin D as a steroid derivative with neuroactive properties and (2) to highlight clinical relevance and need for more research. Our methods included review of research from current journals, Medline, and Cochrane Reviews; theoretical discussion. Scientific research has had a justifiably strong emphasis on how vitamin D affects calcium metabolism and bone. This appears to have eclipsed its fundamental actions on several other important systems, including the central nervous system. Vitamin D as a neuroactive compound, a prohormone, is highly active in regulating cell differentiation, proliferation, and peroxidation in a variety of structures, including the brain. Vitamin D insufficiency is not rare. Historically, focus has been on bone metabolism, which appears to have caused research bias and evidence bias, distorting physiological importance. The central nervous system is increasingly recognized as a target organ for vitamin D via its wide-ranging hormonal effects, including the induction of proteins such as nerve growth factor. We need more research on this important neuroactive substance because it may play a role as a relatively safe and inexpensive pharmaceutical in the prevention and treatment of a number of common neuropsychiatric conditions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".