Correlation between Serum 25-Hydroxyvitamin D Levels and Gastric Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the relationship between serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D[25(OH)D] levels and gastric cancer. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, The China Academic Journals full-text database, Wanfang Database of Chinese Academic Journals, VIP Chinese Science and Technology Periodicals database, and Chinese Biomedical Literature database were systematically searched. Case-control studies on the correlation between serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels and gastric cancer were retrieved, and the data extracted were analyzed. The results of 9 case-control studies containing 671 patients showed that serum 25(OH)D levels in the gastric cancer group were lower than those in the control group (weighted mean difference (WMD) = −8.90, 95% confidence interval (CI): −11.5, −6.32, p < 0.01); the risk of vitamin D deficiency in the gastric cancer group was higher than that in the control group (Odds ratio = 3.09, 95% CI: 1.96, 4.87, p < 0.01). The serum 25(OH)D levels in patients with well and moderately differentiated gastric cancer were higher than those in patients with poorly differentiated gastric cancer (WMD = −3.58, 95% CI: −6.41, −0.74, p = 0.01). Thus, low levels of vitamin D may increase the risk of gastric cancer. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42022327942.
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 | 0.011 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.039 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".