The effects of vitamin D supplementation on muscle function among postmenopausal women: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
statistics. Random-effect model was applied to pool data and weighted mean difference (WMD) was calculated representing summary effect size. Outcomes of interest included the effects of vitamin D supplementation on hand grip strength (HGS), back muscle strength (BMS), and Timed Up and Go (TUG). Twelve RCTs out of 1739 potential reports were included in our meta-analysis. The pooled findings showed that vitamin D supplementation had no significant effect on HGS (WMD -0.03 kilogram (Kg); 95 % CI, -0.26, 0.20; P=0.78), BMS (WMD 7.21 newton (N); 95 % CI, -5.98, 20.40; P=0.28), and TUG (WMD 0.01 second (S); 95 % CI, -0.17, 0.18; P=0.93) in postmenopausal women. Overall, the current meta-analysis showed that taking vitamin D supplementation by postmenopausal women did not affect markers of muscle function. Further studies are required to confirm the effect of vitamin D supplementation on markers of muscle function.
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 | 0.014 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.029 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".