Association between vitamin D concentration and delirium in hospitalized patients: A meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Now the occurrence of delirium is more concerning to clinicians and psychiatrists. It has been reported that vitamin D deficiency may be a relevant factor in the development of delirium in hospitalized patients. STUDY OBJECTIVE: To investigate the association between vitamin D concentration and delirium in hospitalized patients. DESIGN: Meta-analysis. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library. The primary outcome was the occurrence of delirium in the inpatient setting. Odds ratios (OR) were calculated with random or fixed effects models. RESULTS: In this article, we define the normal range of vitamin D concentrations as greater than 75 nmol / L, 50-75 nmol / L as vitamin D insufficiency, 25-50 nmol / L as vitamin D deficiency, and less than 25 nmol / L as vitamin D severe deficiency. The Results showed that severe vitamin D deficiency (OR: 1.98 [1.41-2.79], P<0.001) and vitamin D deficiency (OR: 1.50 [1.12-2.00], P = 0.006) were more likely to develop delirium than normal vitamin D levels. Subgroup analysis also revealed that low vitamin D concentrations were associated with a higher incidence of delirium, whether the cutoff point was 25 nmol/L (OR: 1.52 [1.40-1.64], P<0.001), 50 nmol/L (OR: 1.47 [1.19-1.82], P<0.001), or 75 nmol/L (OR: 1.54 [1.21-1.96], P<0.001). The included studies scored medium and high on the Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale. CONCLUSION: Compared with normal vitamin D levels, severe vitamin D deficiency and vitamin D deficiency, but not vitamin D insufficiency, are associated with a higher incidence of delirium in hospitalized patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This review was registered in the PROSPERO database under identifier CRD42021271347. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021271347.
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 | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.045 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".