MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3205952604 · doi:10.3390/nu13113678

Influence of Vitamin D Supplementation on Mental Health in Diabetic Patients: A Systematic Review

2021· review· en· W3205952604 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dominika Guzek, Aleksandra Kołota, Katarzyna Lachowicz, Dominika Skolmowska, Małgorzata Stachoń, Dominika Głąbska

Bibliographic record

VenueNutrients · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVitamin D Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSystematic reviewMental healthVitamin D and neurologyAnxietyDepression (economics)Diabetes mellitusMEDLINEIntervention (counseling)Meta-analysisInternal medicinePsychiatryEndocrinologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Diabetes is associated with a number of mental health consequences, including enhanced risk of depression and anxiety, as well as decreased quality of life, and vitamin D deficiency is considered to be one of the factors that influence these outcomes in diabetic patients. The aim of the present study was to conduct a systematic review of the literature presenting the data regarding the influence of vitamin D supplementation on mental health in diabetic adults. This study was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) database (Registration number CRD42020155779). A systematic search of the PubMed and Web of Science databases was performed, and the intervention studies published until September 2021 were included in the review. The human studies were included if an adult sample of diabetic individuals received vitamin D supplementation during the intervention and its effect on any mental health aspect was assessed, but studies presenting the influence of combined supplementation of multiple nutrients were excluded. After removing duplicate records, a total of 8514 publications were screened and assessed independently by two researchers, based on their title, abstract, and full text. Finally, six studies were included in the current systematic review, and the risk of bias was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). The included studies analyzed the influence of a specific dose of vitamin D, or different doses of vitamin D, or compared the results of supplementation with a specific dose of vitamin D against the placebo group. The supplementation was performed for at least 12 weeks. The mental health outcomes analyzed in these studies included health-related quality of life, depression, anxiety, stress, and general mental health status of adult diabetic patients. The results of the majority of the studies confirmed the positive influence of vitamin D supplementation on the mental health of diabetic individuals. Those studies that analyzed the influence of vitamin D supplementation on depression and anxiety established the beneficial effect of the vitamin. In some studies, the influence of vitamin D supplementation on the health-related quality of life was not considered unless combined with mindfulness training. However, it must be emphasized that different dosage regimens and intervention periods were followed in the reviewed studies, and only a small number of studies were randomized against placebo, which should be considered as a limitation of the present study. The findings of the conducted systematic review demonstrated the positive influence of vitamin D supplementation on the mental health of diabetic patients, which was proved for anxiety and depression, but in the case of health-related quality of life, the positive effect was observed only when the intervention included mindfulness training. These outcomes suggest that supplementation should be recommended to improve the vitamin D status and the mental health of patients in this group.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.010
Bibliometrics0.0050.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.366 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations20
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNutrientsSame topicVitamin D Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207