Study protocol: Worldwide comparison of vitamin D status of immigrants from different ethnic origins and native-born populations—a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A growing body of literature indicates that, worldwide, immigrants experience health deterioration after their arrival into their adopted country, and moreover, they have lower vitamin D compared to the native-born population. We plan to review if the levels of vitamin D are comparable between different ethnic groups in different regions of the world with those of native-born populations and to identify the possible associations between vitamin D deficiency and disease status among immigrants. METHODS/DESIGN: A systematic review and meta-analysis will be conducted following the methods of the Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews. A literature search was performed to identify studies on immigrants and vitamin D. The primary outcome is vitamin D levels, and the secondary outcome is any vitamin D deficiency-related disease. Study design and participant characteristics will be extracted, including ethnicity, country of birth and/or origin, and the host country. Descriptive and meta-analytic summaries of the outcomes will be derived. Distiller-SR and RevMan will be used respectively for data management and meta-analysis. DISCUSSION: This systematic review may partially help clarify vitamin D-related health deterioration in migrants; moreover, to develop a global guideline that specifies sub-populations, in which the evidence and vitamin D-related recommendations might differ from the overall immigrant population. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42018086729.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Protocol About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Meta-analysis | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Protocol About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | high |
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".