Impact of vitamin D supplementation on C-reactive protein; a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: To evaluate the effect of vitamin D supplementation on C-reactive protein (CRP) through a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized control trials (RCTs). Methods: PubMed-Medline, SCOPUS, Google Scholar and Web of Science databases were searched (up until April 2016) to identify RCTs evaluating the impact of vitamin D supplementation on CRP. We used random effects models (using DerSimonian-Laird method) as well as the generic inverse variance methods for quantitative data synthesis. For sensitivity analysis, we applied leave-one-out approach. To examine the heterogeneity we used I2 index. Registration code: CRD42016036932. Results: Among 1274 search items, 24 studies met the inclusion criteria in the final evaluation. Pooling the data together indicated a non-significant decrease in CRP level following administration of vitamin D (weighted mean difference [WMD] -0.26(mg/l), (95% CI -0.75 to 0.22, N = 26 arms, heterogeneity p = 0.042; I 2 54.2%). The WMDs for IL6 was 0.67 pg/ml, (95% CI 0.29 to 1.06, N = 16 arms, heterogeneity p = 0.234; I 2 19.1%), 0.43 pg/ml, (95% CI 0.08 to 1.05, N = 26 arms, heterogeneity p = 0.120; I 2 42.1%), for IL10, and -0.11 pg/ml, (95% CI -0.53 to 0.30, N = 12 arms, heterogeneity p = 0.423; I 2 9.2%) for TNF-, 4.03 pg/ml, (95% CI 3.50 to 4.57, N = 3 arms, heterogeneity p = 0.752; I 2 8.1%) for adiponectin. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the findings.
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.
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 | 0.018 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.074 | 0.021 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it