MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4309127684 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2139276/v1

Vitamin A and vitamin E in SARS-CoV-2 Infection: a systematic review

2022· review· en· W4309127684 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Maria Clara da Cruz Carvalho, Vivian Nogueira Silbiger, Karla Danielly da Silva Ribeiro, Júlia Kaline Carvalho Pereira Araujo

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicVitamin C and Antioxidants Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
KeywordsMicronutrientInclusion and exclusion criteriaImmune systemVitamin EMedicineCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)VitaminDiseaseVitamin D and neurologyEnvironmental healthVitamin CPhysiologyImmunologyBiologyInternal medicineAntioxidantInfectious disease (medical specialty)Alternative medicinePathologyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract It is known that nutrition plays an important role in maintaining the immune system. In addition, viral infections can culminate in the depletion of vitamins, such as vitamins A and E, and inadequate levels of nutrients can be harmful to health, it is important to verify its relationship with COVID-19, a disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2, the new coronavirus first identified in Wuhan (China), and has spread rapidly worldwide, affecting the immune system and causing exacerbated inflammation. The aim of the study is to investigate whether COVID-19 affects the levels of these vitamins, and how they can help fighting the infection, it is relevant since they can be included as therapy against the disease. A systematic search was performed according to the PRISMA statement, using the PubMed, Web of Science, and EMBASE databases. We selected articles that presented the controlled descriptors present in the title or abstract without language exclusion. Abstracts, conferences, editorials, book chapters, review articles, letters, short communications, supporting information, or articles unavailable for download were excluded. The quality of studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS). From a total of 4,572 articles, 10 met all inclusion criteria. Three of them were related with vitamin A, two with vitamin E and five relating both vitamins to COVID-19. Of these, 70% were studies that evaluated the concentrations of vitamins, and 30% that evaluated the impact of supplementation of these micronutrients. Adult and elderly patients had decreased vitamin A and E concentrations, being below or close to the reference values for deficiency, especially in critical patients. Supplementation of these vitamins was associated with better prognosis of patients. However, the therapeutic capacity of these vitamins requires additional biological validation through more robust studies, such as randomized clinical trials and assessment of food intake of these vitamins. In addition, studies that assess serum levels of these vitamins before infection are also required.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.008
Bibliometrics0.0080.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.152
GPT teacher head0.473
Teacher spread0.322 · 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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch SquareSame topicVitamin C and Antioxidants ResearchFrench-language works237,207