Peer Review #2 of "A systematic review of pediatric clinical trials of high dose vitamin D (v0.1)"
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background.Due to inadequate UV exposure, intake of small quantities of vitamin D is recommended to prevent musculoskeletal disease.Both basic science and observational literature strongly suggest that higher doses may benefit specific populations and have non-musculoskeletal roles.Evaluating the evidence surrounding high dose supplementation can be challenging given a relatively large and growing body of clinical trial evidence spanning time, geography, populations and dosing regimens.Study objectives were to identify and summarize the clinical trial literature, recognize areas with high quality evidence, and develop a resource database that makes the literature more immediately accessible to end users.Methods.Medline (1946 to January 2015), Embase (1974 to January 2015), and Cochrane databases (January 2015), were searched for trials.All pediatric (0-18 years) trials administering doses higher than 400 IU (< 1 year) or 600 IU (≥1 year) were included.Data was extracted independently by two of the authors.An online searchable database of trials was developed containing relevant extracted information ( https://vitamind.knackhq.com/pediatrics).Sensitivity and utility were assessed by comparing the trials in the database to those from systematic reviews of vitamin D supplementation including children.Results.2579 candidate papers were identified, yielding 169 trials having one or more arms meeting eligibility criteria.The publication rate has increased significantly from 1 per year (1970)(1971)(1972)(1973)(1974)(1975)(1976)(1977)(1978)(1979) to 14 per year (2010)(2011)(2012)(2013)(2014)(2015).Although 84% of the total trials focused on healthy children or known high risk populations (e.g.renal, prematurity), this proportion has declined in recent years due to the rise in trials evaluating populations and outcomes not directly related to the musculoskeletal actions of vitamin D (27% in 2010s).Beyond healthy children, the only pediatric populations with more than 50 participants from low risk of bias trials evaluating a clinically relevant outcome were prematurity and respiratory illness.Finally, we created and validated the online searchable database using 13 recent systematic reviews.Of the 38 high dose trials identified by the systematic review, 36 (94.7%) could be found within the database.When compared with the search strategy reported in each systematic review, use of the database reduced the number of full papers PeerJ reviewing
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 | 0.052 | 0.271 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.105 | 0.015 |
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".