Systematic review and meta-analysis of Spanish studies regarding the association between maternal 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels and perinatal outcomes
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
Objective: This systematic review and meta-analysis of Spanish studies assessed the association of maternal 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] levels on perinatal outcomes.Methods: PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Scielo, Scopus, and Web of Science research databases were searched from inception through December 30 2017 using the terms ‘vitamin D’, ‘pregnancy’, and ‘Spain’. Studies that compared first or second half of pregnancy normal 25(OH)D (≥30.0 ng/mL) versus insufficient (20.0–29.9 ng/mL) or deficient (<20.0 ng/mL) circulating levels and perinatal outcomes were systematically extracted. Data are presented as pooled odds ratios and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for categorical variables or mean differences and CIs for continuous variables. Risk of bias was evaluated with the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale.Results: Five cohort studies met inclusion criteria. The risk of gestational diabetes mellitus, preeclampsia, preterm birth, and small-for-gestational-age infants, and birthweight was not influenced by first half of pregnancy maternal 25(OH)D levels. In addition, second half of pregnancy 25(OH) levels did not affect birthweight.Conclusion: Maternal 25(OH)D levels during pregnancy did not affect studied perinatal outcomes and birthweight.
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 | 0.002 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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