MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Vitamin D: an overview of its role in skeletal muscle physiology in children and adolescents

2012· review· en· W1979646494 on OpenAlexafffund
Tom J. Hazell, Jason R. DeGuire, Hope A. Weiler

Bibliographic record

VenueNutrition Reviews · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVitamin D Research Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersMcGill University
KeywordsVitamin D and neurologySkeletal muscleVitaminEndocrinologyvitamin D deficiencyCalciumCalcitriol receptorInternal medicineBiologyFunction (biology)PhysiologyMedicineCell biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many children may have insufficient serum concentrations of vitamin D, which could prevent optimal muscle development and function. Vitamin D deficiency in animal models results in negative effects on muscle fiber structure and calcium/phosphorus handling, suggesting an integral role of vitamin D in skeletal muscle function. While there is a dearth of data in humans, the available evidence demonstrates a positive association between vitamin D status and muscle function. This review focuses on the important role of vitamin D in muscle function in children and adolescents who live in North American regions where exposure to ultraviolet B radiation is limited and who are thus at increased risk for vitamin D insufficiency. The effects of vitamin D on muscle cell proliferation and differentiation, muscle fiber structure, and calcium and phosphorus handling are discussed. Moreover, the roles of vitamin D and the vitamin D receptor and their genomic and nongenomic actions in muscle function are explored in depth. Future research should aim to establish a vitamin D status consistent with optimal musculoskeletal development and function in young children.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.096
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations68
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNutrition ReviewsSame topicVitamin D Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207