MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2952904922 · doi:10.1093/cdn/nzz048.p11-089-19

Effect of Maternal Postpartum and Infant Intermittent Vitamin D Supplementation on Infant Vitamin D Status: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Trials (P11-089-19)

2019· review· en· W2952904922 on OpenAlexaff
Karen M O’Callaghan, Mahgol Taghivand, Anna Zuchniak, Akpevwe Onoyovwi, Jill Korsiak, Michael Leung, Daniel Roth

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Developments in Nutrition · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBreastfeeding Practices and Influences
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisPediatricsConfidence intervalRandomized controlled trialVitamin D and neurologySystematic reviewClinical trialRelative riskPostpartum periodMEDLINEPregnancyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To determine the response of infant (≤ 1 year) circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) to maternal postpartum or infant intermittent vitamin D supplementation in comparison to current recommendations of direct daily oral infant supplementation (400 IU/d). MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, Embase, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched up to December 4th 2018. A systematic search of online trial registries for unpublished, ongoing, or planned trials was also completed. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk Assessment Tool. Meta-analysis was limited to trials with a control group of infants receiving 400 IU vitamin D/d. A weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) was generated using infant 25(OH)D as a continuous outcome. Random-effects models accounted for within- and between-study variability. Statistical heterogeneity was quantified with the I2 statistic. A total of 28 trials were included, representing data from all 6 World Health Organization world regions. Of the 25 trials that specified a calciferol form, the majority (88%) employed vitamin D3. Six trials (21%) had an overall low risk of bias. Six trials qualified for meta-analysis, stratified by maternal (n = 4) and infant (n = 2) administration. Maternal supplementation resulted in a modestly lower infant vitamin D status than daily infant supplementation (WMD =-7.3 nmol/L; 95% CI: -14.0 to -0.6; I2 = 37%, P = 0.17). Comparison of infant intermittent bolus dosing to daily supplementation was limited by a small sample size and substantial heterogeneity, resulting in a wide CI (WMD = 10.2 nmol/L; 95% CI: -42.9 to 63.3; I2 = 96%, P < 0.001). Safety outcomes, including effects on calcium homeostasis, were inconsistently reported. Four ongoing trials were identified as potential contributors to future reviews. Evidence to support the use of specific alternative maternal or infant regimens to substitute for current daily infant vitamin D supplementation is weak and inconsistent. Dose-ranging, adequately powered trials are required to establish the efficacy and safety of feasible alternative strategies to prevent infant vitamin D deficiency SickKids C-GCH Growth and Development Fellowship.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.069

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0260.041
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.124
GPT teacher head0.442
Teacher spread0.319 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Developments in NutritionSame topicBreastfeeding Practices and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207