Low Vitamin D Concentration Is Not Associated with Increased Mortality and Morbidity after Cardiac Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of vitamin D on postoperative outcomes in cardiac surgical patients. DESIGN: Retrospective study. SETTING: Single institution-teaching hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Adult cardiac surgical patients with perioperative 25-hydroxyvitamin D measurements. INTERVENTIONS: None. We gathered information from the Cardiac Anesthesiology Registry that was obtained at the time of the patients' visit/hospitalization. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We used data of 18,064 patients from the Cardiac Anesthesiology Registry; 426 patients with 25-hydroxyvitamin D measurements met our inclusion criteria. Association with Vitamin D concentration and composite of 11 cardiac morbidities was done by multivariate (i.e., multiple outcomes per subject) analysis. For other outcomes separate multivariable logistic regressions and adjusting for the potential confounders was used. The observed median vitamin D concentration was 19 [Q1-Q3∶12, 30] ng/mL. Vitamin D concentration was not associated with our primary composite of serious cardiac morbidities (odds ratio [OR], 0.96; 95% CI, 0.86-1.07). Vitamin D concentration was also not associated with any of the secondary outcomes: neurologic morbidity (P = 0.27), surgical (P = 0.26) or systemic infections (P = 0.58), 30-day mortality (P = 0.55), or length of initial intensive care unit (ICU) stay (P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis suggests that perioperative vitamin D concentration is not associated with clinically important outcomes, likely because the outcomes are overwhelmingly determined by other baseline and surgical factors.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".