Association between vitamin D level and bronchopulmonary dysplasia: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neonatal vitamin D deficiency is common and is associated with development of pulmonary disease in children and adults. While the role of vitamin D in normal lung development is well established, the association between vitamin D deficiency and bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) remains unclear. The present meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the relationship between vitamin D and BPD. We identified relevant studies (n = 8) using the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and KoreaMed databases and applied the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale to assess the methodological components of each study, and used I2 statistic to evaluate heterogeneity. Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software version 3.3 was used for the statistical analysis. A total of 909 infants were included, of whom 251 (27.6%) were diagnosed with BPD. We found that both vitamin D deficiency at birth (four studies; OR 2.405; 95% CI 1.269 to 4.560; p = 0.007) and low levels of vitamin D at birth (four studies; standardized mean difference -1.463; 95% CI -2.900 to -0.027; p = 0.046) were associated with BPD. The compiled data suggest that antenatal vitamin D deficiency and low vitamin D levels are associated with neonatal BPD.
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 | 0.009 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.030 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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".