Role of vitamin D in oxidative stress modulation in end‐stage renal disease patients: A double‐blind randomized clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Oxidative stress is considered as important actor in uremia-associated morbidity and mortality in hemodialysis (HD) patients. We aimed to evaluate the role of vitamin D supplementation on oxidative stress parameters in this group. METHODS: This double-blind randomized clinical trial was conducted on HD patients who were randomly allocated into intervention (n = 40) or control groups (n = 38) for 10 weeks. Blood samples were taken before and at the end of the trial to measure serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D), malondialdehyde (MDA), glutathione peroxidase (GPx), catalase (CAT), and superoxide dismutase (SOD). Data were analyzed using SPSS, and P value <0.05 was considered to be statistically significant. FINDINGS: Out of the 78 patients with a mean age of 44.7 ± 13.0 years, 55.1% were men. At the commencement of the study, there was no difference with respect to serum 25(OH)D levels in our groups (P = 0.575), but during the study it was significantly elevated in the intervention group (18.1 ± 9.1 vs. 31.7 ± 12.9, P < 0.0001). Serum antioxidative enzymes activity (GPx, CAT, and SOD) had significantly increased after vitamin D supplementation in the intervention group (P < 0.05). Furthermore, MDA levels was significantly reduced only in the intervention group (31.7 ± 18.0 vs. 24.7 ± 7.7, P = 0.018). DISCUSSION: Regular consumption of vitamin D can increase the GPx, CAT, SOD, and reduce the MDA plasma levels in HD patients. Since no adverse effects of vitamin D supplementation was reported by the patients; hence, it can be prescribed for HD patients.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".