Dietary vitamin D intake and serum 25‐hydroxyvitamin D level in relation to disease outcomes in head and neck cancer patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Low pretreatment vitamin D status has been associated with worsened disease outcomes in patients with cancer at various sites. Its prognostic significance in head and neck cancer (HNC) patients has not been studied. Patients with HNC who participated in a randomized trial were evaluated for: (i) total intake of vitamin D from diet and supplements using a validated food frequency questionnaire (all trial participants, n = 540) and (ii) pretreatment serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D through a radioimmunoassay (n = 522). The association of dietary/serum measures of vitamin D status with HNC recurrence, second primary cancer (SPC) incidence, and overall mortality was evaluated using multivariate Cox proportional hazard models. There was no significant association between dietary or serum vitamin D measures and the three HNC outcomes. The hazard ratios (HRs) comparing the highest with the lowest quartile of dietary/supplemental vitamin D intake were 1.10 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.66-1.84) for recurrence, 1.05 (95% CI: 0.63-1.74) for SPC, and 1.27 (95% CI: 0.87-1.84) for overall mortality. HRs comparing the uppermost to the lowest quartile of serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels were 1.12 (95% CI: 0.65-1.93) for recurrence, 0.72 (95% CI: 0.40-1.30) for SPC, and 0.85 (95% CI: 0.57-1.28) for overall mortality. There was no effect modification by cancer stage, season of initial treatment, or trial arm. Among patients with HNC, vitamin D status before treatment does not influence disease outcomes. Our results contrast with those from most published studies, which suggest prognostic significance of vitamin D status in cancer patients at least in subgroups.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".