MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Vitamin C supplementation for asthma

2009· review· en· W2148260177 on OpenAlexaff
Balvinder Kaur, Brian H. Rowe, Elizabeth Stovold

Post-publication record

NatureRetraction
ReasonRetract and Replace;Unreliable Results and/or Conclusions;
Date10/23/2015 0:00
Flagged by OpenAlex?Yes

Source: Retraction Watch, joined by DOI. OpenAlex records retraction as is_retracted, a boolean over a state space with at least four values, so it cannot express an expression of concern, a correction or a reinstatement; it reports them as false, which reads as “fine”.

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAsthmaPlaceboMeta-analysisVitaminRandomized controlled trialConfidence intervalInternal medicineClinical trialCochrane LibraryVitamin EInclusion and exclusion criteriaAdverse effectPediatricsPhysical therapyAlternative medicineAntioxidantPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Vitamin C is one of the key antioxidant vitamins which is abundant in the extracellular fluid lining the lung and low vitamin C intake has been associated with pulmonary dysfunction. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the evidence for the efficacy of vitamin C in the treatment of asthma. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Airways Review Group asthma register was searched and bibliographies of studies identified were also checked for further trials. This review has been updated by searches to August 2008. SELECTION CRITERIA: Only randomised controlled trials were eligible for inclusion. Studies were considered for inclusion if they dealt with the treatment of asthma using vitamin C supplementation. Two independent reviewers identified potentially relevant studies using pre-defined criteria and selected studies for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were abstracted independently by two reviewers. Information on patients, methods, interventions, outcomes and results was extracted using standard forms. MAIN RESULTS: Nine studies met the review entry criteria, randomising a total of 330 participants. Study design varied and the reporting was generally poor. Five trials contributed numerical data to the review. They provided outcome data on lung function, symptom scores, IgE levels and inhaled steroid use. One small study showed a significant difference in % drop in FEV1 post-exercise. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: At present, evidence from randomised-controlled trials is insufficient to recommend a specific role for vitamin C in the treatment of asthma. Further methodologically strong and large-scale randomised controlled trials are needed in order to address the question of the effectiveness of vitamin C in children with asthma.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0060.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.146
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations115
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsFrench-language works237,207