Impact of vitamin D supplementation on health-care use in a 25-hydroxyvitamin D-tested population in France: a population-based descriptive cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Chronic vitamin D deficiency has been associated in some patients with diffuse musculoskeletal pain. These unspecific symptoms may partly explain why vitamin D deficiency is often diagnosed late. Our aim was to analyse health-care claims after vitamin D supplementation in patients likely to have vitamin D deficiency. DESIGN: Ambulatory health-care claims were compared before and after a vitamin D supplementation prescribed following a 25-hydroxyvitamin D assay. SETTING: Health Insurance Fund (FHIF) database of the Rhône-Alpes area, France. SUBJECTS: Among patients reimbursed for a 25-hydroxyvitamin D assay between 1 December 2008 and 31 January 2009, those supplemented with vitamin D after the assay were matched on the date of assay to patients who did not receive vitamin D. RESULTS: Among the 3023 patients who had a 25-hydroxyvitamin D assay, 935 were consequently supplemented and matched to 935 patients not supplemented. Their median age was 50·0 and 49·5 years, respectively. Patients supplemented decreased their muscle relaxant consumption whereas no change was observed in the reference group, the difference between the two groups was significant (P=0·03). Second and third Pain Relief Ladder prescriptions decreased in both groups but not significantly differently between groups (P=0·58). There was a decrease in prescriptions of biological examination in both groups with no significant difference. CONCLUSIONS: Besides a decrease in muscle relaxant prescriptions in the supplemented group, it was difficult to assess the impact of vitamin D supplementation in patients likely to have vitamin D deficiency. Prospective cohort studies and randomized trials are needed to assess the efficiency of screening and supplementing vitamin D deficiency.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".