Vitamin D deficiency and risk of recurrent aphthous stomatitis: updated meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Growing evidence suggests a significant association between vitamin D deficiency and RAS. Hence, the present meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis sought to investigate the potential association between low serum vitamin D levels and RAS. Methods PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science were comprehensively searched on December 1 st , 2022 to retrieve all relevant studies. The grey literature was also searched via ProQuest. All case-control studies on the association between vitamin D and RAS were considered. The quality appraisal of the included studies was done using Newcastle-Ottawa scale. RevMan 5.0 and trial sequential analysis (TSA) programs were used for analyses. Results A total of 14 case-control studies with 1468 subjects (721 RAS patients and 747 controls) were included. The pooled data revealed a significant association between low serum levels of vitamin D and the risk of RAS (mean difference = – 8.73, 95% CI: – 12.02 to – 5.44, I 2 = 94%, P < 0.00001). Additionally, TSA findings indicated that the current studies surpassed the required information size, confirming that the differences were reliable. Conclusion The available evidence suggests that Vitamin D deficiency may have a role in the pathogenesis of RAS. Therefore, evaluation of vitamin D should be considered in RAS patients. Additionally, the results support the possibility of using vitamin D supplements in the management of RAS patients with inadequate serum levels of vitamin D. Future interventional studies are required to evaluate the benefits of vitamin D replacement in prevention and treatment of RAS.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| 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".