MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2165986164 · doi:10.5539/gjhs.v6n6p82

Assessment of Vitamin K2 Levels in Osteoporotic Patients: A Case Control Study

2014· article· en· W2165986164 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Akram Noori, Mahin Lashkari, Sonia Oveisi, Mohamad Reza Khair Khah, Ali Zargar

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Journal of Health Science · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicVitamin K Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersQazvin University of Medical Sciences
KeywordsMedicineOsteoporosisDensitometryPercentileInternal medicineMann–Whitney U testVitamin D and neurologyBone densityRheumatologyOutpatient clinicVitamin K2VitaminPhysical therapyGastroenterology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to measure the level of Vitamin K2 (Vit K2) in osteoporotic patients and individuals with normal bone density as controls. MATERIALS & METHODS: This case-control study was done in Outpatient Department of Rheumatology at Qazvin Boo-ali Sina Hospital in 2013. Participants were 50 patients with osteoporotic densitometry measured by DEXA (T score? -2.5) who were matched with 48 persons in control group with normal bone density (T score> -1). The level of Vit K2 in samples was measured using enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Data were analyzed by Mann-Whitney U test and Chi-square test. RESULTS: The level of Vit K2 in patients with osteoporosis was not significantly different from the control group (Median: 75.95 vs. 71.35 nmol/L, respectively; P-value: 0.709). The authors determined cut-offs 75 percentile of vitamin K2 in all participants that was 85 nmol/L and percentages of persons in two groups were similar. CONCLUSION: Although Vit K2 level in patients with osteoporosis was not significantly different from the control group, further studies are necessary to confirm the association of osteoporosis and Vit K2.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.430

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.379 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations8
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Journal of Health ScienceSame topicVitamin K Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207