MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3088032068 · doi:10.1016/j.hemonc.2020.08.005

Vitamin D baseline levels at diagnosis of breast cancer

2020· review· en· W3088032068 on OpenAlexaff
Ioannis A. Voutsadakis

Bibliographic record

VenueHematology/Oncology and Stem Cell Therapy · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVitamin D Research Studies
Canadian institutionsNOSM UniversityEssar Steel Algoma (Canada)Sault Area Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBaseline (sea)Meta-analysisBreast cancerMedicineCancerOncologyInternal medicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Vitamin D is a steroid hormone that exerts its actions through ligation of the vitamin D receptor (VDR), a transcription factor of the nuclear receptor family. VDR has not only physiologic actions in calcium metabolism but also several other cellular effects through extensive binding to the DNA and modification of genome expression. In cancer, it has neoplasia-suppressive effects and various mechanisms of action mediating cancer cell inhibition have been described. Vitamin D deficiency has been linked to increased risk of breast cancer. A role of the vitamin once the disease has been diagnosed is also probable. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that report on vitamin D levels (in the form of its main circulating metabolite, 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25-OHD]) in patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer was performed. Outcomes of interest included the levels of serum 25-OHD in patients with breast cancer, those of matched controlled, in studies that included controls, as well as respective percentages of patients and controls with deficient and insufficient 25-OHD levels. RESULTS: A total of 25 studies (10 with controls and 15 without controls) provided data on the outcomes of interest. Populations from all continents, besides Australia, were represented in the studies. The mean level of 25-OHD in patients with breast cancer was 26.88 ng/mL (95% CI 22.8-30.96 ng/mL) and the mean level of 25-OHD in control patients was 31.41 ng/mL (95% CI 19.31-43.5 ng/mL). In the patients with breast cancer group, 45.28% (95% CI 24.37%-53.51%) had levels of 25-OHD below 20 ng/mL, whereas this percentage was 33.71% (95% CI 21.61%-45.82%) in controls. Similarly, 67.44% (95% CI 48.32%-86.55%) of patients with breast cancer had a baseline level of 25-OHD below 30 ng/mL, whereas this percentage was 33.71% (95% CI 21.61%-45.82%) in controls. CONCLUSION: A high prevalence of vitamin D insufficiency is observed in patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer and may be linked pathophysiologically with breast cancer development or progression. Therapeutic benefits may be provided by manipulation of the vitamin D pathway in breast cancer.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.004
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.085
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.304 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations69
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHematology/Oncology and Stem Cell TherapySame topicVitamin D Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207