MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2161231378 · doi:10.3109/10408363.2014.901291

Role of vitamin D in acquired immune and autoimmune diseases

2014· review· en· W2161231378 on OpenAlexaff
Edgar Delvin, Jean‐Claude Souberbielle, Jean‐Paul Viard, B Salle

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Reviews in Clinical Laboratory Sciences · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVitamin D Research Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMcGill UniversityMontreal Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVitamin D and neurologyImmune systemvitamin D deficiencyDiseaseAutoimmune diseaseMedicineDiabetes mellitusPathogenesisImmunologyClinical trialBioinformaticsMultiple sclerosisAutismBiologyInternal medicineEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Vitamin D has been attributed roles in the pathogenesis and prevention of several diseases such as cancer, cardiovascular disease, multiple sclerosis, diabetes, autism and autoimmune diseases. The concomitant expression of the 25-hydroxyvitamin D3-1α-hydroxylase and of the vitamin D3 receptor in animal and human tissues and organs other than bone supports this paradigm. Translated into the clinical field, meta-analyses and systematic reviews have also revealed an association between vitamin D insufficiency or deficiency and non-osseous diseases. Although relying on the large databases, they are diverse in nature and involve participants of varying age and evolving in different environments. Furthermore, they do not allow any analysis of a possible causal relationship between vitamin D supplementation and clinical outcomes. Following a brief historical account, this review addresses these caveats, and gives examples of randomized controlled trials conducted in the fields of acquired immune and autoimmune diseases.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.122
GPT teacher head0.511
Teacher spread0.388 · 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

Citations60
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Reviews in Clinical Laboratory SciencesSame topicVitamin D Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207