MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2809596868 · doi:10.3389/fcvm.2018.00087

Vitamin D Supplementation, Serum 25(OH)D Concentrations and Cardiovascular Disease Risk Factors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2018· review· en· W2809596868 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVitamin D Research Studies
Canadian institutionsSt. Mary's UniversityUniversity of CalgaryPure North
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineMeta-analysisBlood pressureStrictly standardized mean differenceConfidence intervalVitamin D and neurologyRandomized controlled trialGastroenterologyCochrane Library

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors are associated with low serum 25 hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) concentrations in observational studies; however, clinical trial findings are inconsistent. Objective: We assessed the effect of vitamin D supplementation and increased serum 25(OH)D concentrations on CVD risk factors in a systemic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Design: MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE and Google Scholar were searched for RCTs that evaluated vitamin D supplementation and cardiovascular outcomes [blood pressure, parathyroid hormone (PTH), serum high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP), total cholesterol, high and low density lipoprotein (HDL and LDL, respectively), triglycerides, peak wave velocity (PWV) and Augmentation Index (AI)] from 1992 through 2017. Meta-analysis was based on a random-effects model and inverse variance method to calculate standardized mean difference (SMD) as effect sizes, followed by a leave-one-out method for sensitivity analysis. Risk of publication bias was assessed using Cochrane checklist and Begg funnel plots. The systematic review is registered as CRD42015025346. Results: We identified 2341 studies from which 81 met inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis indicated a significant reduction in systolic blood pressure (SMD=-0.102±0.04 mmHg, 95% confidence interval (CI), -0.20 to -0.03), diastolic blood pressure (SMD=-0.07±0.03 mmHg, 95% CI, -0.14 to -0.006), serum PTH (SMD=-0.66±0.08 ng/L, 95% CI, -0.82 to -0.49), hs-CRP (SMD=-0.20±0.07 mg/L, 95% CI, -0.34 to -0.06), total cholesterol (SMD=-0.15±0.06 mmol/L, 95% CI, -0.25 to -0.04), LDL (SMD=-0.10±0.05 mmol/L, 95% CI, -0.20 to -0.003), triglycerides (SMD=-0.12±0.06 mmol/L, 95% CI, -0.23 to -0.003) and a significant increase in HDL (SMD=0.09±0.04 mmol/L, 95% CI, 0.00 to 0.17) with vitamin D supplementation. These findings remained significant in sensitivity analyses for blood pressure, lipid profile, serum PTH, and serum hs-CRP. There was no significant effect of vitamin D supplementation on PWV (SMD=-0.20±0.13 m/s, 95% CI, -0.46 to 0.06, p=0.14) and AI (SMD=-0.09%±0.14%, 95% CI, -0.37 to 0.19, p=0.52) for vitamin D supplemented groups. Conclusion: These findings suggest that vitamin D supplementation may act to protect against CVD through improving risk factors, including high blood pressure, elevated PTH, dyslipidemia, and inflammation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (broad)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.402
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0260.011
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.055
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.283 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it