MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Vitamin K supplementation for cystic fibrosis

2013· review· en· W4233657838 on OpenAlexaff
Vanitha A Jagannath, Zbys Fedorowicz, Vidhu Thaker, Anne B. Chang

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsCochrane
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCystic fibrosisPlaceboInternal medicineSweat testVitaminRandomized controlled trialMalabsorptionSubclinical infectionClinical trialMeta-analysisPediatricsGastroenterologyPathologyAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Cystic fibrosis is a genetic disorder which can lead to multiorgan dysfunction. Malabsorption of fat and fat-soluble vitamins (A, D, E, K) may occur and can cause subclinical deficiencies of some of these vitamins. Vitamin K is known to play an important role in both blood coagulation and bone formation. Supplementation with vitamin K appears to be one way of addressing the deficiency, but there is very limited agreement on the appropriate dose and frequency of use of these supplements. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of vitamin K supplementation in people with cystic fibrosis and to determine the optimal dose and route of administration of vitamin K for both routine and therapeutic use. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Trials Register comprising references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings.Most recent search: 11 October 2012. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of all preparations of vitamin K used as a supplement compared to either no supplementation (or placebo) at any dose or route and for any duration, in children or adults diagnosed with cystic fibrosis (by sweat test or genetic testing). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened papers, extracted trial details and assessed their risk of bias. MAIN RESULTS: Two trials (total of 32 participants) were included in the review and were assessed as having a moderate risk of bias. One was a dose-ranging parallel group trial; and the other had a cross-over design, but no separate data were reported for the first intervention period. Neither of the trials addressed any of the primary outcomes (coagulation, bone formation and quality of life). Both trials reported the restoration of serum vitamin K and undercarboxylated osteocalcin levels to the normal range after one month of daily supplementation with 1 mg of vitamin K. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from randomised controlled trials on the benefits of routine vitamin K supplementation for people with CF is currently weak and limited to two small trials of short duration. However, no harm was found and until further evidence is available, the present recommendations should be adhered to.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.143
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.269 · 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

Citations21
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsFrench-language works237,207