Vitamin D and cognition in older adults: international consensus guidelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hypovitaminosis D, a common condition in older adults, is associated with brain changes and dementia. Given the fast growing contribution of literature in this research field, clear guidance is needed for clinicians and researchers. International experts met at the invitational summit on "Vitamin D and cognition in older adults" in Boston, MA, July 2013. Based upon literature and expert opinion, the task force focused on key questions on the role of vitamin D in Alzheimer disease and related disorders. Each question was discussed and voted using a Delphi-like approach. Experts reached agreement that hypovitaminosis D increases the risk of cognitive decline and dementia in older adults, may alter the clinical presentation as a consequence of related comorbidities, but should not be used thus far as a diagnostic or prognostic biomarker of Alzheimer disease due to lack of specificity and insufficient evidence. Hypovitaminosis D should be screened in this population because of its high prevalence and supplemented, if necessary, but this advice was not specific to cognition. The task force agreed on 5 overarching principles related to vitamin D and cognition in older adults.
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 | 0.021 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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".