Serum level of vitamin D in patients with recurrent aphthous stomatitis: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of case control studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Recurrent aphthous stomatitis (RAS) is an ulcerative condition with unknown etiology. The effect of vitamin D in the etiology of RAS is still a matter of controversy. In this study, we aimed at review the available evidence on the role of vitamin D deficiency in RAS etiology. MATERIAL AND METHODS: PubMed, Cochrane Library for Systematic Reviews, ISI Web of Science, Scopus, and EmBase were systematically searched for evidence on RAS and vitamin D up to January 2020. Retrieved records were screened and assessed by two of the authors independently. Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to assess the quality of individual studies. AMSTAR tool was used for assessing the quality of the study. RESULTS: Eight studies including 383 healthy control and 352 patients with RAS were eligible for the meta-analysis. Serum vitamin D levels were significantly lower in RAS patients. The weighted mean difference was -7.90 (95% CI: -11.96 to -3.85). CONCLUSIONS: The results highlighted the importance of vitamin D deficiency in the etiology of RAS. However, more studies are needed to reach a robust decision. The observed association between vitamin D and RAS is probably due to the effect of vitamin D on the immune system.
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 | 0.011 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.028 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".