MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Vitamin D Supplementation During Pregnancy: State of the Evidence From a Systematic Review of Randomized Trials

2018· review· en· W2901455859 on OpenAlexaff
B W Hollis, Dana E. Johnson, Charlene Thomas, Thomas C. Hulsey, Carol L. Wagner

Bibliographic record

VenueObstetric Anesthesia Digest · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVitamin D Research Studies
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePregnancyRandomized controlled trialVitamin D and neurologyVitaminSystematic reviewMeta-analysisObstetricsPediatricsPhysiologyMEDLINEInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

( BMJ . 2017;359:j5237) Vitamin D affects bone growth and calcium homeostasis but more far reaching effects have been proposed, including effects on pregnancy and birth outcomes. Dietary and supplementation recommendations for vitamin D vary across medical and professional organizations in spite of growing concern regarding the high prevalence of vitamin D deficiency in pregnant women and newborns. This study was a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of prenatal vitamin D supplementation that was undertaken with the goal of estimating the effects of vitamin D supplementation during pregnancy on maternal, neonatal, and infant outcomes.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.097
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.091
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.097
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0170.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.291 · 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.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueObstetric Anesthesia DigestSame topicVitamin D Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207