Smoking behavior and circulating vitamin D levels in adults: A meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To determine the effect of smoking on circulating vitamin D in adults, we performed a meta-analysis. Literature before 9 May 2021 was retrieved from electronic literature databases such as EMBASE, PubMed, and Cochrane. The quality of the included studies was assessed by two researchers against the Newcastle-Ottawa scale and JBI Evidence-based Health Care Centre criteria. All eligible studies and statistical analyses were performed using STATA 14. Twenty-four studies with 11,340 participants meeting the criteria were included in the meta-analysis. The results of meta-analysis showed that the level of circulating 25(OH)D in smokers was lower than that in nonsmokers. A subgroup analysis based on vitamin D supplement use showed that both smokers who used vitamin D supplements and smokers who did not use vitamin D supplements had lower blood 25(OH)D levels compared with the control group. In addition, subjects were divided into different subgroups according to age for meta-analysis, and the results showed that the serum 25(OH)D level in each subgroup of smokers was lower than that in the control group. This meta-analysis revealed differences in circulating vitamin D levels between smokers and nonsmokers, with smokers likely to have lower circulating vitamin D levels.
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 | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.049 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".