Vitamin D deficiency in critically ill children: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Vitamin D deficiency (VDD) has been hypothesized not only to be common but also to represent a potentially modifiable risk factor for greater illness severity and clinical outcome during critical illness. The objective of this systematic review was to determine the frequency of VDD in pediatric critical illness and its association with clinical outcomes. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL were searched through December 12, 2016, with no date or language restrictions. The primary objective was to estimate the prevalence of VDD in the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) and compare vitamin D status with healthy control populations. Secondary objectives were to evaluate whether VDD is associated with mortality, increased illness severity, PICU interventions, and patient clinical course. Random effects meta-analysis was used to calculate pooled VDD event rate, compare levels with those of control subjects, and evaluate for associations between VDD and clinical outcome. RESULTS: Among 2700 citations, 17 studies meeting study eligibility were identified. The studies reported a total of 2783 critically ill children and had a median sample size of 120 (range 12-511). The majority of studies used a 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] level less than 50 nmol/L to define VDD, and the pooled VDD prevalence was 54.8 (95% CI 45.4-63.9). Average 25(OH)D levels were significantly lower in PICU patients than in healthy control subjects (pooled difference -17.3 nmol/L, 95% CI -14.0 to -20.6). In a meta-analysis calculation, we found that VDD was associated with increased mortality (OR 1.62, 95% CI 1.11-2.36), illness severity, and need for PICU interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 50% of critically ill children have VDD at the time of PICU admission, defined as a blood total 25(OH)D concentration under 50 nmol/L. VDD was further determined to be associated with greater illness severity, multiple organ dysfunction, and mortality in the PICU setting. Clinical trials are required to determine if optimization of vitamin D status improves patient outcome. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO, CRD42016026617 . Registered on 11 January 2016.
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 | 0.009 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.030 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".