The Effects of Vitamin D Supplementation on Markers Related to Endothelial Function Among Patients with Metabolic Syndrome and Related Disorders: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical 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
Abstract This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were conducted to summarize the effect of vitamin D supplementation on endothelial function among people with metabolic syndrome and related disorders. Cochrane library, Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science database were searched to identify related RCTs published up 20th May 2018. To check heterogeneity a Q-test and I2 statistics were used. Data were pooled by using the random-effect model and standardized mean difference (SMD) was considered as summary effect size. Twenty-two trials of 931 potential citations were found to be eligible for current meta-analysis. The pooled findings by using random effects model indicated that vitamin D supplementation to individuals with MetS and related disorders significantly increased flow-mediated dilatation (FMD) (SMD=1.10; 95% CI, 0.38, 1.81, p=0.003). However, it did not affect pulse-wave velocity (PWV) (SMD=0.04; 95% CI, –0.25, 0.33, p=0.80) and augmentation index (AI) (SMD=0.07; 95% CI, –0.25, 0.40; p=0.65). Overall, this meta-analysis demonstrated that vitamin D supplementation to patients with metabolic syndrome and related disorders resulted in an improvement in FMD, but did not influence PWV and AI.
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 | 0.026 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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