MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2979333257 · doi:10.1212/wnl.0000000000008445

Randomized trial of daily high-dose vitamin D <sub>3</sub> in patients with RRMS receiving subcutaneous interferon β-1a

2019· article· en· W2979333257 on OpenAlexaff
Raymond Hupperts, Joost Smolders, Reinhold Vieth, Trygve Holmøy, Kurt Marhardt, Myriam Schluep, Joep Killestein, Frederik Barkhof, Manolo Beelke, Luigi Grimaldi

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVitamin D Research Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity College London Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustNorges ForskningsrådSanofiMerck KGaANational Institute for Health and Care ResearchTeva Pharmaceutical IndustriesBiogen
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialVitamin D and neurologyInternal medicinePhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<h3>Objective</h3> In the phase II, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Supplementation of Vigantol Oil versus Placebo Add-on in Patients with Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis (RRMS) Receiving Rebif Treatment (SOLAR) study (NCT01285401), we assessed the efficacy and safety of add-on vitamin D<sub>3</sub> in patients with RRMS. <h3>Methods</h3> Eligible patients with RRMS treated with SC interferon-β-1a (IFN-β-1a) 44 μg 3 times weekly and serum 25(OH)D levels &lt;150 nmol/L were included. From February 15, 2011, to May 11, 2015, 229 patients were included and randomized 1:1 to receive SC IFN-β-1a plus placebo (n = 116) or SC IFN-β-1a plus oral high-dose vitamin D<sub>3</sub> 14,007 IU/d (n = 113). The revised primary outcome was the proportion of patients with no evidence of disease activity (NEDA-3) at week 48. <h3>Results</h3> At 48 weeks, 36.3% of patients who received high-dose vitamin D<sub>3</sub> had NEDA-3, without a statistically significant difference in NEDA-3 status between groups (placebo 35.3%; odds ratio 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.53–1.63; <i>p</i> = 0.80). Compared with placebo, the high-dose vitamin D<sub>3</sub> group had better MRI outcomes for combined unique active lesions (incidence rate ratio 0.68; 95% CI 0.52–0.89; <i>p</i> = 0.0045) and change from baseline in total volume of T2 lesions (difference in mean ranks: −0.074; <i>p</i> = 0.035). <h3>Conclusions</h3> SOLAR did not establish a benefit for high-dose vitamin D<sub>3</sub> as add-on to IFN-β-1a, based on the primary outcome of NEDA-3, but findings from exploratory outcomes suggest protective effects on development of new MRI lesions in patients with RRMS. <h3>Clinicaltrials.gov identifier</h3> NCT01285401. <h3>Classification of evidence</h3> This study provides Class II evidence that for patients with RRMS treated with SC IFN-β-1a, 48 weeks of cholecalciferol supplementation did not promote NEDA-3 status.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.082
Threshold uncertainty score0.646

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations132
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurologySame topicVitamin D Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207