Effect of vitamin D supplementation on type 2 diabetes biomarkers: an umbrella of interventional meta-analyses
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Vitamin D supplementation exerts several supporting effects on improving glycemic status, however, results are inconclusive. Thus, in the present study, we aimed to conduct an umbrella of meta-analysis regarding the impact of vitamin D on type 2 diabetes (T2DM) biomarkers. METHODS: The Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Google Scholar online databases were searched up to March 2022. All meta-analyses evaluating the impact of vitamin D supplementation on T2DM biomarkers were considered eligible. Overall, 37 meta-analyses were included in this umbrella meta-analysis. RESULTS: Our findings indicated that vitamin D supplementation significantly decreased fasting blood sugar (FBS) (WMD = - 3.08; 95% CI: - 3.97, - 2.19, p < 0.001, and SMD = - 0.26; 95% CI: - 0.38, - 0.14, p < 0.001), hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) (WMD = - 0.05; 95% CI: - 0.10, - 0.01, p = 0.016, and SMD = - 0.16; 95% CI: - 0.27, - 0.05, p = 0.004), insulin concentrations (WMD = - 2.62; 95% CI: - 4.11, - 1.13; p < 0.001, and SMD = - 0.33; 95% CI: - 0.56, - 0.11, p = 0.004), and homeostatic model assessment for insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) (WMD = - 0.67; 95% CI: - 1.01, - 0.32, p < 0.001, and SMD = - 0.31; 95% CI: - 0.46, - 0.16, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: This umbrella meta-analysis proposed that vitamin D supplementation may improve T2DM biomarkers.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it