A systematic review examining the effect of vitamin D supplementation on functional outcomes post-stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this systematic review was to explore the effect of vitamin D supplementation on functional outcomes (motor function, mobility, activities of daily living and stroke impairment) among individuals post-stroke (PROSPERO CRD42022296462). DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, and CINAHL were searched for all articles published up to March 5, 2023. METHODS: Only interventional studies assessing vitamin D supplementation compared to placebo or usual care in adult stroke patients were selected. After duplicate removal, 2912 studies were screened by two independent reviewers. A total of 43 studies underwent full text review; 10 studies met inclusion criteria (8 randomized controlled trials and 2 non-randomized studies of intervention). Data were extracted by two independent reviewers using Covidence software. Motor function (Brunnstrom Recovery Stage, Berg Balance Score), mobility (Functional Ambulation Category), activities of daily living (Barthel Index, Functional Independence Measure) and stroke impairment (modified Rankin Scale, National Institutes for Health Stroke Severity, Scandinavian Stroke Severity) were the outcome measures of interest reported in the included studies. RESULTS: In total, 691 patients were studied for which 11 of 13 outcome measures showed improvement with vitamin D supplementation. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of studies showed a statistical improvement in motor function, mobility, and stroke impairment with vitamin D supplementation; however, the evidence did not support an improvement in activities of daily living with treatment. Despite this, there may not be clinical significance. Strong, methodologically sound, randomized controlled trials are required to verify these findings.
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 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 | 0.013 | 0.177 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".