Bibliographic record
Abstract
Beyond effects on bone health, vitamin D exerts effects on a variety of target organs, including the brain. The discussion herein presents the state of the art in research on the neurological role of vitamin D and clinical implications among older adults, including implications for dementia onset and progression. Some of the neurosteroid actions of vitamin D include regulation of calcium homeostasis, clearance of amyloid-β peptide, antioxidant and anti-inflammatory effects, and possible protection against the neurodegenerative mechanisms associated with Alzheimer's disease (AD). The correction of age-related hypovitaminosis D and cognitive decline has been reported by various cross-sectional and longitudinal studies reporting associations of lower vitamin D concentrations with brain changes and poorer cognition, specifically with respect to executive dysfunction. Epidemiological studies have consistently shown an association between inadequate dietary intake of vitamin D and cognitive disorders, including greater AD risk. Although there have not been any randomized placebo-controlled trials conducted to examine the effectiveness of vitamin D supplementation to prevent AD, several nonrandomized controlled studies have found that older adults experienced cognitive improvements after 1-15 months of vitamin D supplementation. Therefore, it appears crucial to maintain vitamin D concentrations at sufficiently high levels in order to slow, prevent, or improve neurocognitive decline.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".