MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Vitamin D deficiency in surgical congenital heart disease: prevalence and relevance.

2013· review· en· W2100419336 on OpenAlexaff
James Dayre McNally, Kusum Menon

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVitamin D Research Studies
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Eastern Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinevitamin D deficiencyContext (archaeology)DiseaseVitamin D and neurologyHeart diseaseIntensive care medicineClinical significanceEpidemiologyOrgan systemPediatricsOrgan dysfunctionPhysiologySurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Vitamin D is a pleiotropic hormone important for the proper functioning of multiple organ systems. An emerging body of adult and pediatric critical care literature strongly suggests that vitamin D deficiency contributes to secondary organ pathophysiology, prolongs ICU stay, and worsens outcome in critically ill populations. Recent clinical studies suggest that a significant number of children with congenital heart disease (CHD) have post-operative vitamin D deficiency which appears to be associated with greater cardiovascular dysfunction. Altogether the cumulative body of literature suggests that peri-operative optimization of vitamin D status has the potential to speed recovery and/or improve outcome. This review describes the epidemiological and basic science research linking vitamin D deficiency to post-operative organ dysfunction. Furthermore, the available supplementation approaches are reviewed in the context of prevention of post-operative vitamin D deficiency and avoidance of toxicity in the majority of CHD patients. Finally, knowledge gaps regarding vitamin D supplementation are identified and the next stages for research are outlined.

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)0.002
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.277 · 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

Citations22
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicVitamin D Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207