PRevention of COVID-19 with Oral Vitamin D supplemental Therapy in Essential healthCare Teams (PROTECT): Ancillary study of a randomised controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The study objectives were to ascertain the efficacy of vitamin D supplementation in rapidly increasing serum vitamin D and of implementation of a hybrid (virtual and in-person) trial. Methods In a randomised triple-blind controlled trial, healthcare workers were allocated to receive an oral bolus of 100,000 IU with 10,000 IU/week vitamin D3 or placebo. The co-primary outcomes of this ancillary study were the change from baseline in serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D [(Δ) 25(OH)D] and proportion with vitamin D sufficiency (25(OH)D ≥ 75nmol/L), at endpoint. Adherence to supplements and procedures as well as adverse event rates were documented. Results Thirty-four (19 intervention, 15 control) subjects were randomised, with 28 (41%) virtual visits. After 44.78 ± 11.00 days from baseline, a significant adjusted group difference of 44.2 (34.7, 53.8) nmol/L was observed in the Δ 25(OH)D (95%CI) in favor of supplementation; 77.8% of intervention, and 13.3% of control, patients were vitamin D sufficient (OR:6.11, 95%CI:1.6, 22.9). The adherence to intervention was 94.7% in the intervention and 100% in the control groups. Irrespective of visit type, high adherence was observed in sampling procedures and completion of fortnightly online questionnaire. No adverse events attributable to vitamin D were reported. Conclusion The vitamin D supplementation rapidly and safely raised 25(OH)D levels to sufficient levels for a biological effect. Similarly high adherence to study procedures was observed with virtual and in-person participation. Trial registration: This trial was registered at https://clinicaltrials.gov on July 23, 2020 (#NCT04483635)
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 | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".