MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3159236559 · doi:10.15173/sciential.v1i5.2548

Implications of Vitamin D Levels in COVID-19 Morbidity and Mortality

2020· article· en· W3159236559 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Seyedeh Niki Sadat Afjeh, Nahal Emami Fard, P. Poursharif

Bibliographic record

VenueSciential - McMaster Undergraduate Science Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVitamin D Research Studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVitamin D and neurologyMedicinevitamin D deficiencyCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Retrospective cohort studyInternal medicineCohortCohort studyAdverse effectVitaminPopulationGastroenterologyDiseaseInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Vitamin D is a steroid hormone known for maintaining bone health. Vitamin D deficiency is a 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) serum concentration below 25 nmol/L. In contrast, vitamin D insufficiency occurs at levels below 75 nmol/L. Vitamin D insufficiency and deficiency affect 70% and 30% of the US population, respectively. Emerging evidence associates optimal vitamin D levels with better clinical outcomes in COVID-19. This literature review analyzed three preliminary articles that explored associations between vitamin D levels, COVID-19 mortality, and risk of adverse clinical outcomes in adult hospitalized patients. Google Scholar was used to find studies that diagnosed COVID-19 with reverse transcription (RT-PCR). In a cross-sectional analysis, Maghbooli et al. (2020) reported that vitamin D sufficient patients had a significantly lower chance (9.7%, n=77, p=0.01) of severe COVID-19 complications than deficient patients (32.8%, n=158, p=0.01). This study is under review for diagnosis accuracy and sample size. A retrospective cohort study by Raharusun et al. (2020), which included active and expired cases (n=780), found that 98.9% (p<0.001) of vitamin D deficient COVID-19 patients and 88% (p<0.001) with insufficiency died, but only 4% of sufficient individuals died. Lastly, a retroactive cohort study by Meltzer et al. (2020) reported higher rates of COVID-19 infection, 21.6% (95% CI, 14.0-29.2%), in vitamin D deficient groups (n=172), compared to 12.2% (95% CI, 8.5-15.4%) in sufficient groups (n=327). The 25(OH)D levels were measured within one year of COVID-19 testing. All studies controlled for age, sex, and comorbidities, while the first controlled for BMI and smoking, and the third controlled for race. Vitamin D sufficiency may activate the innate and adaptive immune systems, leading to an antiviral response. Receptor binding of vitamin D on neutrophils and macrophages stimulates cathelicidin expression, an antibacterial peptide. Macrophage and T-regulatory cell quantities also increase. These results reveal the need for randomized controlled studies of vitamin D sufficiency as a potential mitigator in COVID-19 outcomes.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.127
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.273 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSciential - McMaster Undergraduate Science JournalSame topicVitamin D Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207