MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2895608732 · doi:10.4103/ajm.ajm_20_18

Vitamin D deficiency in elderly: Risk factors and drugs impact on vitamin D status

2018· article· en· W2895608732 on OpenAlexaff
Hasan Kweder, Housam Eidi

Bibliographic record

VenueAvicenna Journal of Medicine · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVitamin D Research Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinevitamin D deficiencyVitamin D and neurologyIncidence (geometry)Secondary hyperparathyroidismFurosemideInternal medicinePediatricsBody mass indexRenal functionParathyroid hormoneCalcium

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Vitamin D (VD) deficiency is a major public health problem worldwide. In spite of its high prevalence, particularly among elderly people, VD deficiency is still underestimated by many physicians. Increasingly, VD deficiency is associated with several known geriatric syndromes. METHODS: The study sample consisted of 125 patients, aged 75 years and older, admitted to the acute geriatric unit. The plausible association between the serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] level and patient age, sex, body mass index, renal function, cholecystectomy history, and the prescribed drugs had been investigated. The Fisher's exact test was used to conduct the statistical analysis of data. RESULTS: Surprisingly, furosemide treatment was correlated with normal 25(OH)D levels and an increased incidence of secondary hyperparathyroidism. Unlike the other four parameters mentioned above, our data showed that only the patient sex exhibited a significant association with 25(OH)D level as elderly males suffered from a serious VD deficiency as compared to elderly females. CONCLUSION: Old age is an independent risk factor for VD deficiency. The supplementary dose of VD should be precisely defined to achieve the optimal serum 25(OH)D level in elderly people. The definition of the normal serum 25(OH)D threshold in elderly furosemide-treated patients is worth of further studies.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.753

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.323 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations85
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAvicenna Journal of MedicineSame topicVitamin D Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207