Vitamin D Supplementation in Mechanically Ventilated Patients in the Medical Intensive Care Unit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The utility of vitamin D (VITD) supplementation during critical illness and whether it may alter outcomes, including mortality and ventilator‐free days, is unclear. We performed a retrospective cohort study in a generalizable population to investigate this question. Methods We included all mechanically ventilated adults admitted to the medical intensive care unit (ICU) service at a tertiary center from 2009 to 2012 who were in the ICU for at least 72 hours. Patients were grouped as having received or not received VITD at any time during the first 7 days of their ICU stay, and we adjusted for the following covariates with multivariable analyses: simplified acute physiology score, age, gender, admission diagnosis, race/ethnicity, admission season, admission day of the week, and VITD supplementation prior to admission. Results Among the 610 included patients, 281 received VITD, and 329 did not. There were no differences in outcomes between these groups. However, we did find significantly more ventilator‐free days (21.0±2.6 [adjusted mean days±standard error] vs 17.6±2.4, P=0.04) and ICU‐free days (18.5±2.5 vs 16.3±2.3, P=0.03) in patients who were taking VITD prior to admission (n=91) vs those who were not (n=519). No patients who were taking VITD before admission died vs 34.5% of those who were not (estimated odds ratio=4.9×10−7, 95% CI=3.1×10−7 to 7.5×10−7, P<0.0001). Conclusion These results suggest that VITD supplementation during critical illness may not provide benefit and that further research investigating potential supplementation in ambulatory patients at high risk of ICU admission (eg, severe underlying chronic disease) is warranted.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".