Meta-analysis of the Relationship between Serum 25-Hydroxy-Vitamin D Levels and Diabetic Retinopathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To explore the relationship between serum 25-hydroxy-vitamin D [25(OH)D] and diabetic (DR), and provide evidence regarding the cause and the prevention of DR. Methods: In this meta-analysis study, a systematic literature search was conducted for articles cited up to May 2016 in PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, VIP Database, and WanFang Data. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess the quality of the included trials. Data excerpted from the trials were subjected to meta-analyses using Review Manager 5.2. Heterogeneity between studies was assessed by the I2 statistic. Subgroup analysis was performed based on age, continent, and measurement method for 25(OH)D. A funnel plot and a statistical test for asymmetry were used to assess the potential for publication bias. Results: Six studies were included with 634 patients in the DR group and 683 patients in the no diabetic retinopathy (NDR) group. The mean serum concentration of 25(OH)D was significantly lower in the DR group than in the NDR group [Standard Mean Difference (SMD)=-0.41, 95%CI (-0.63, -0.18), P=0.0004]. Subgroup analysis could not determine the origin of heterogeneity. After excluding a study with high heterogeneity, we used fixed-effects sensibility analysis. The results showed that the SMD between the DR and NDR groups for 25(OH)D [SMD=-0.33, 95%CI (-0.45, -0.21), P<0.01] was significant. Conclusions: Patients with DR have a lower concentration of 25(OH)D than NDRs do. Measuring serum 25(OH)D levels may be used as a clinical monitoring indicator of DR. Key words: diabetic retinopathy; 25-hydroxy-vitamin D; meta-analysis
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".