Association Between Low Vitamin D Levels and the Greater Impact of Fibromyalgia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Fibromyalgia (FM) is a clinical syndrome mainly characterized by generalized chronic pain, fatigue, sleep and cognition disorders. The role played by vitamin D in the pathophysiology of painful syndromes is poorly known. Studies assessing the association between vitamin D and FM have presented conflicting results. The aims of the current study were to assess vitamin D levels in FM patients, by comparing them to healthy controls, as well as to analyze their impact on this disease. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study comprising 43 FM patients (ACR 2010 criteria) and 40 healthy individuals. All participants had their vitamin D levels measured, and FM patients also had their total calcium, albumin, phosphorus and parathyroid hormone (PTH) measured. Clinical variables capable of affecting the results were evaluated and the fibromyalgia impact questionnaire (FIQ) was applied. RESULTS: There was not statistically significant difference in global mean values of vitamin D between groups. In the total sample, only 4.8% of the individuals had vitamin D deficiency, which corresponded to the deficiency found in the group of patients; in the control, no one had vitamin deficiency; 39.8% had insufficient levels and 55.4% with sufficient levels. The mean serum vitamin D values were similar between the FM and control groups (34.8 ± 12 and 34.7 ± 12.3 ng/mL, respectively; P = 0.806). However, a significant negative correlation was found between vitamin D concentration and FIQ values, that is, patients with the greatest impact of the disease had lower concentrations of vitamin D (P = 0.018). CONCLUSION: FM patients did not present higher prevalence of vitamin D deficiency or insufficiency than healthy individuals, although low vitamin D concentrations could indicate more severe disease impacts.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".