MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2119621057 · doi:10.3945/ajcn.111.031070

Comparison of vitamin D2 and vitamin D3 supplementation in raising serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D status: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2012· review· en· W2119621057 on OpenAlexaff
Laura Tripkovic, Helen Lambert, Kathryn Hart, Colin P. Smith, Giselda Bucca, Simon Penson, Gemma A. Chope, Elina Hyppönen, Jacqueline Berry, Reinhold Vieth, S. A. Lanham‐New

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Clinical Nutrition · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVitamin D Research Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersBiotechnology and Biological Sciences Research CouncilNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsMedicineVitaminMeta-analysisRandomized controlled trialVitamin D and neurologyInternal medicineCholecalciferolBolus (digestion)Systematic reviewGastroenterologyMEDLINEChemistryBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.977
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0230.032
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.242
GPT teacher head0.537
Teacher spread0.295 · 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.

Study designMeta-analysis
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

Citations770
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Clinical NutritionSame topicVitamin D Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207