MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2212955848 · doi:10.1080/13803395.2015.1125452

Vitamin D and executive functioning: Are higher levels better?

2015· article· en· W2212955848 on OpenAlexafffund
Jacqueline A. Pettersen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVitamin D Research Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Northern British Columbia
FundersUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Northern British Columbia
KeywordsPsychologyMemory spanVerbal fluency testExecutive functionsVitamin D and neurologyCognitionExecutive dysfunctionFluencyAudiologyEffects of sleep deprivation on cognitive performanceDevelopmental psychologyWorking memoryNeuropsychologyMedicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Insufficiency of 25-hydroxyvitamin D has been associated with cognitive impairment, particularly worse executive functioning. However, it remains unclear whether supratherapeutic levels (≥100 nmol L(-1)) are associated with even better performance than sufficient levels (defined as ≥50 nmol L(-1) or even ≥75 nmol L(-1)). The current investigation sought to examine this question. METHOD: Healthy adults (n = 142) were tested on four measures of executive functioning, including verbal fluency, digit span backward, CANTAB® Spatial Working Memory, and One Touch Stockings of Cambridge. A measure of attention (digit span forward) and memory (CANTAB® Verbal Recognition) were also assessed. Based on blood 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] levels, participants were divided into four groups: insufficient (<50 nmol L(-1)), low sufficient (50 to <75 nmol L(-1)), high sufficient (75 to <100 nmol L(-1)), and supratherapeutic (≥100 nmol L(-1)). Relationships between vitamin D status and cognition were assessed by analyses of covariance and hierarchical multiple regression, adjusted for age, education, sex, body mass index, mood, and physical activity level. Multivariate regression spline analyses were utilized to investigate nonlinearity. RESULTS: Performance on verbal fluency, but not other measures, differed by vitamin D status, analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), F(3, 127) = 2.70, p = .048; d = 0.50. Specifically, participants with supratherapeutic levels provided a greater number of words (M = 16.1, SE = 1.0) than those with insufficient (M = 12.0, SE = 1.0; p = .007, d = 0.78), low (M = 13.4, SE = 0.7; p = .026, d = 0.51), and high sufficient levels (M = 13.9, SE = 0.9; p = .080, d = 0.42). Similarly, vitamin D status was a significant independent predictor of verbal fluency (p = .025, d = 0.40). Spline analyses revealed that there is a positive, near-linear association between verbal fluency and 25(OH)D levels up to and exceeding 100 nmol L(-1). DISCUSSION: Supratherapeutic levels of vitamin D were associated with significantly better performance on verbal fluency. Importantly, commonly used cutoff levels and sufficiency categories have been based on bone health and optimal levels for cognition are unknown. These findings suggest that levels exceeding 100 nmol L(-1) may be optimal for at least some aspects of executive functioning.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.174
GPT teacher head0.459
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 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

Citations31
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical and Experimental NeuropsychologySame topicVitamin D Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207