Vitamin D Supplementation and Mental Health in Multiple Sclerosis Patients: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vitamin D has a promising role in multiple sclerosis (MS) management, and it has been found to be beneficial for patients' mental health, which is reduced in MS patients. The aim of the present study was to conduct a systematic review of the literature to assess the influence of vitamin D supplementation on mental health in MS patients. The systematic review was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42020155779) and it was conducted on the basis of the PRISMA guidelines. The search procedure was conducted using PubMed and Web of Science databases and it included studies published up until September 2021. Six studies were included in the systematic review. The risk of bias was analyzed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Within the included studies, there were two studies randomized against placebo and four other prospective studies. The studies presented vitamin D interventions randomized against placebo or not randomized, while supplementation was applied for various durations-from 4 weeks to 12 months, or the studies compared patients who applied vitamin D supplementation and those who did not apply it and verified the effect of the supplementation after a number of years. The mental health outcomes that were assessed included quality of life, depression/depressive symptoms, and fatigue as an additional element. The majority of studies supported the positive influence of vitamin D on the mental health of MS patients, including the study characterized as having the highest quality (randomized against placebo with the highest NOS score). All the studies that assessed the quality of life indicated the positive influence of vitamin D while the studies that did not find a positive influence of vitamin D were conducted for depression/depressive symptoms. In spite of the fact that only a small number of studies have been conducted so far, and only two studies were randomized against a placebo, some conclusions may be formulated. The systematic review allowed us to conclude that there may be a positive effect of vitamin D supplementation in MS patients, which was stated in all of the studies analyzing quality of life, as well as in one study analyzing depressive symptoms. Considering that vitamin D deficiency is common in MS patients, and the potential positive influence of supplementation on the quality of life, supplementation should be applied at least in doses that cover the recommended intake.
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 | 0.006 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".