MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2401289504 · doi:10.3109/02699052.2016.1147081

A review of the neuroprotective role of vitamin D in traumatic brain injury with implications for supplementation post-concussion

2016· review· en· W2401289504 on OpenAlexaff
David W. Lawrence, Bhanu Sharma

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain Injury · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVitamin D Research Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTraumatic brain injuryMedicineNeuroprotectionVitamin D and neurologyConcussionPlaceboInternal medicinePoison controlInjury preventionPsychiatryPathologyAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Nutritional interventions are promising treatment adjuncts in the management of concussion. Vitamin D (VDH) supplementation has demonstrated neuroprotective properties in multiple models of acquired brain injury. OBJECTIVE: Review the neuroprotective role of VDH supplementation following traumatic brain injury (TBI). METHODS: A Medline search was conducted to review manuscripts investigating the influence of VDH status or supplementation on TBI outcomes. RESULTS: The search identified 165 studies, of which five were included. Four manuscripts studied a rodent model of TBI, while one studied a clinical sample. Vitamin D monotherapy independently reduced inflammation and neuronal injury following TBI, with a more robust effect observed in combination with progesterone (PROG). One study demonstrated VDH deficiency exacerbates post-TBI inflammatory response. One study in a clinical sample found combination therapy superior to PROG alone or placebo in improving outcomes after severe TBI. One study observed a more robust response to low-dose VDH compared to high-dose VDH when given in combination with PROG. CONCLUSION: A protective role for VDH and a vitamin D sufficient status was identified for numerous outcomes following TBI. However, VDH supplementation cannot be recommended at this time to improve outcomes following TBI.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.837
Threshold uncertainty score0.730

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.362 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations37
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrain InjurySame topicVitamin D Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207