Post-publication record
Source: Retraction Watch, joined by DOI. OpenAlex records retraction as is_retracted, a boolean over a state space with at least four values, so it cannot express an expression of concern, a correction or a reinstatement; it reports them as false, which reads as “fine”.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Vitamin C is one of the key antioxidant vitamins which is abundant in the extracellular fluid lining the lung and low vitamin C intake has been associated with pulmonary dysfunction. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the evidence for the effectiveness of vitamin C in the treatment of asthma. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Airways Review Group asthma register was searched and bibliographies of studies identified were also checked for further trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Only randomised controlled trials were eligible for inclusion. Studies were considered for inclusion if they dealt with the treatment of asthma using vitamin C supplementation. Two independent reviewers identified potentially relevant studies using pre-defined criteria and selected studies for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were abstracted independently by two reviewers. Information on patients, methods, interventions, outcomes and results was extracted using standard forms. MAIN RESULTS: A total of 65 abstracts and titles were identified. Ten studies were selected for potential inclusion, six met the inclusion criteria. All included studies were placebo-controlled and randomised. Only three provided data in a form that permitted further analysis and none could be aggregated in a meta analysis. The individual studies produced no significant effect on any asthma outcome. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: At present, evidence from randomised-controlled trials is insufficient to recommend a specific role for vitamin C in the treatment of asthma. A methodologically strong and large-scale randomised controlled trial is warranted in order to address the question of the effectiveness of vitamin C in patients with asthma.
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 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".