Comparing Vitamin D Level Between Patients with Psoriasis and Healthy Individuals: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Psoriasis is nowadays regarded as a systemic inflammatory disorder. Among the topicals, vitamin D derivates are often applied on the skin for their anti-inflammatory and immune-modulatory properties. Vitamin D serum levels in psoriasis (PsO) patients are still debated and an eventual depletion may offer the rational to integrate anti-psoriatic therapies with oral vitamin D. Then, we aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis on the current evidence towards serum vitamin D level in PsO. Methods We searched in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Sciences, ScienceDirect and Science Information Database (SID) using the terms “Vitamin D” and “Psoriasis” including manuscripts in English, Italian and Persian. Duplications were excluded using EndNote software and records were screened by title, abstract and full-text. Quality assessment of studies was assessed using Newcastle Ottawa Checklist (NOS). Psoriasis odds ratio (OR) and mean serum vitamin D levels were calculated and displayed in Forest-plots. Heterogeneity indexes were evaluated using I 2 and Q. Sensitivity analysis and publication biases were also considered. Results From 3006 records extracted, after removing duplicates and analyzing full texts we finally included 19 manuscripts involving a total of 1387 PsO cases and 6939 controls. PsO patients exhibited a substantial odds ratio (3.07, 95% CI: 1.56-6.04) for lower serum vitamin D levels compared to the control group. Standardized Mean Difference (SMD) of vitamin D in PsO versus controls was −0.92 (−1.33 to −0.51). Conclusion Psoriatic patients displayed higher risk to have a vitamin D deficiency. Interventional studies to verify the preventive value are mandatory.
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 | 0.014 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.038 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".