Efficacy of vitamin D supplementation in depression in adults: a systematic review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The role of vitamin D in management of depression is unclear. Results from observational and emerging randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the efficacy of vitamin D in depression lack consistency - with some suggesting a positive association while others show a negative or inconclusive association. METHODS/DESIGN: The primary aim of this study is to conduct a systematic review of RCTs to assess the effect of oral vitamin D supplementation versus placebo on depression symptoms measured by scales and the proportion of patients with symptomatic improvement according to the authors' original definition. Secondary aims include assessing the change in quality of life, adverse events and treatment discontinuation. We will conduct the systematic review and meta-analysis according to the recommendations of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We will search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (1966 to present), EMBASE (1980 to present), CINAHL (1982 to present), PsychINFO (1967 to present) and ClinicalTrials.gov. Unpublished work will be identified by searching two major conferences: the International Vitamin Conference, the Anxiety Disorders and Depression Conference, while grey literature will be acquired by contacting authors of included studies. We will use the random-effects meta-analysis to synthesize the data by pooling the results of included studies. DISCUSSION: The results of this systematic review will be helpful in clarifying the efficacy of vitamin D supplementation and providing evidence to establish guidelines for implementation of vitamin D for depression in general practice and other relevant settings. STUDY REGISTRATION: Unique identifier: CRD42013003849.
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 | 0.054 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.017 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.080 | 0.009 |
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".