MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2013164113 · doi:10.1210/jc.2014-2136

Effect of Vitamin D<sub>3</sub>Supplementation on Improving Glucose Homeostasis and Preventing Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2014· review· en· W2013164113 on OpenAlex
Jennifer C Seida, Joanna Mitri, Isabelle N Colmers-Gray, Sumit R. Majumdar, Mayer B. Davidson, Alun Edwards, David A. Hanley, Anastassios G. Pittas, Lisa Tjosvold, Jeffrey Johnson

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVitamin D Research Studies
Canadian institutionsAlliance for Canadian Health Outcomes Research in DiabetesUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMeta-analysisGlucose homeostasisDiabetes mellitusMedicineHomeostasisVitamin D and neurologySystematic reviewInternal medicineEndocrinologyMEDLINEChemistryBiochemistryInsulin resistance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: Observational studies report consistent associations between low vitamin D concentration and increased glycemia and risk of type 2 diabetes, but results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are mixed. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to systematically review RCTs that report on the effects of vitamin D supplementation on glucose homeostasis or diabetes prevention. DATA SOURCES: Sources of data for the study were MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Health Technology Assessment, and Science Citation Index from inception to June 2013. STUDY SELECTION: Study selection was trials that compared vitamin D3 supplementation with placebo or a non-vitamin D supplement in adults with normal glucose tolerance, prediabetes, or type 2 diabetes. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers collected data and assessed trial quality using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Random-effects models were used to estimate mean differences (MDs) and odds ratios. The main outcomes of interest were homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance, homeostasis model assessment of β-cell function, hemoglobin A1c levels, fasting blood glucose, incident diabetes, and adverse events. DATA SYNTHESIS: Thirty-five trials (43 407 patients) with variable risk of bias were included. Vitamin D had no significant effects on insulin resistance [homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance: MD -0.04; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.30 to 0.22, I-squared statistic (I(2)) = 45%], insulin secretion (homeostasis model of β-cell function: MD 1.64; 95% CI -25.94 to 29.22, I(2) = 40%), or hemoglobin A1c (MD -0.05%; 95% CI -0.12 to 0.03, I(2) = 55%) compared with controls. Four RCTs reported on the progression to new diabetes and found no effect of vitamin D (odds ratio 1.02; 95% CI 0.94 to 1.10, I(2) = 0%). Adverse events were rare, and there was no evidence of publication bias. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from available trials shows no effect of vitamin D3 supplementation on glucose homeostasis or diabetes prevention. Definitive conclusions may be limited in the context of the moderate degree of heterogeneity, variable risk of bias, and short-term follow-up duration of the available evidence to date.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.770
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0240.005
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.440
Teacher spread0.369 · 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