MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2101711689 · doi:10.1139/cjpp-2014-0374

Genetic polymorphisms related to vitamin D and the therapeutic potential of vitamin D in multiple sclerosis

2015· review· en· W2101711689 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Masaaki Niino, Yusei Miyazaki

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVitamin D Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVitamin D and neurologyVitaminMultiple sclerosisBiologyCalcitriol receptorImmune systemCYP24A1ImmunologyEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Vitamin D receptors (VDRs), which are responsible for most vitamin D functions, are expressed on various immune cells. Vitamin D is considered to be a potent immunomodulator. A variety of cells in the central nervous system (CNS) also express VDRs; thus, vitamin D may play a role in the regulation of neurodegeneration and repair processes within the CNS. Considered together with epidemiological studies, low vitamin D status is reckoned to be one of the risk factors for multiple sclerosis (MS). Further, vitamin D is considered to be a possible treatment for MS. However, previous clinical trials with small cohorts have not demonstrated significant effects of vitamin D in MS. Current ongoing clinical trials with large cohorts could provide answers with respect to the clinical effects of vitamin D in MS. However, genetic studies have suggested that genes associated with vitamin D, including VDRs, are susceptible genes for MS. Vitamin D needs to be considered from the perspective of the interaction between vitamin-D-related genetic factors and environmental factors affecting vitamin D levels.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Citations8
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Physiology and PharmacologySame topicVitamin D Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207