Clinical impact of vitamin D treatment in cystic fibrosis: a pilot randomized, controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Vitamin D insufficiency in cystic fibrosis is common. Vitamin D3 is currently preferred over D2. We aimed to study the efficacy of vitamin D2 and D3 at increasing serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (s25OHD) concentrations and their effect on respiratory health in cystic fibrosis. SUBJECTS/METHODS: Sixteen CF patients were randomized to receive vitamin D2 or D3 or to serve as controls. The starting dose of 5000 IU (<16 years old) or 7143 IU/day (⩾16 years old) was further individually adjusted. Three months of intervention were followed by two of washout (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01321905). RESULTS: To increase s25OHD, the mean daily dose of vitamin D2 and D3 had to be increased up to 15650 and 8184 IU, respectively. The combined group of vitamin D2 and D3 treated patients decreased plasma IL-8 (P<0.05). Patients provided vitamin D3 improved FVC at the end of the trial (P<0.05). Change in s25OHD was positively correlated with changes in the adult Quality-of-Life respiratory score at the end of supplementation (P=0.006, r=0.90), and with changes in FEV1 (P=0.042, r=0.62) and FVC (P=0.036, r=0.63) at one month of washout. CONCLUSIONS: Vitamin D supplementation may contribute to reduced inflammation and improved lung function in CF.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".