Vitamin D deficiency and the risk of anemia: a meta-analysis of observational studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Anemia and vitamin D deficiency (VDD) are both very important health issues, recent accumulating evidence shows that VDD is prevalent in individuals with anemia. This meta-analysis aimed to detect a relationship between VDD and anemia. METHODS: We identified eligible studies by searching the Pub Med, Embase and Cochrane Library before October 2014. Quality assessments were performed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Heterogeneity was evaluated by Cochran's Q test and source of heterogeneity was detected by subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: A total of seven studies involving 5183 participants were included in the meta-analysis. VDD was associated with an increased incidence of anemia (OR = 2.25, 95% CI = 1.47-3.44), with significant evidence of heterogeneity among these studies (p for heterogeneity < 0.001, I(2) = 84.0%). The subgroup and sensitivity analysis confirmed the stability of the results and no publication bias was detected. CONCLUSION: Our outcomes showed that VDD increased the risk of developing anemia. More researches are warranted to clarify an understanding of the association between VDD and risk of anemia.
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 | 0.012 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.035 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".