Vitamin Status in Patients with Phenylketonuria: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The published data on the vitamin status of patients with phenylketonuria (PKU) is contradictory; therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the vitamin status of PKU patients. A comprehensive search of multiple databases (PubMed, Web of Sciences, Cochrane, and Scopus) was finished in March 2024. The included studies compared vitamin levels between individuals diagnosed with early-treated PKU and healthy controls while excluding pregnant and lactating women, untreated PKU or hyperphenylalaninemia cases, control groups receiving vitamin supplementation, PKU patients receiving tetrahydrobiopterin or pegvaliase, and conference abstracts. The risk of bias in the included studies was assessed by the Newcastle–Ottawa scale. The effect sizes were expressed as standardised mean differences. The calculation of effect sizes with 95% CI using fixed-effects models and random-effects models was performed. A p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. The study protocol was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42024519589). Out of the initially identified 11,086 articles, 24 met the criteria. The total number of participants comprised 770 individuals with PKU and 2387 healthy controls. The meta-analyses of cross-sectional and case–control studies were conducted for vitamin B12, D, A, E, B6 and folate levels. PKU patients demonstrated significantly higher folate levels (random-effects model, SMD: 1.378, 95% CI: 0.436, 2.320, p = 0.004) and 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D concentrations (random-effects model, SMD: 2.059, 95% CI: 0.250, 3.868, p = 0.026) compared to the controls. There were no significant differences in vitamin A, E, B6, B12 or 25-dihydroxyvitamin D levels. The main limitations of the evidence include a limited number of studies and their heterogeneity and variability in patients’ compliance. Our findings suggest that individuals with PKU under nutritional guidance can achieve a vitamin status comparable to that of healthy subjects. Our study provides valuable insights into the nutritional status of PKU patients, but further research is required to confirm these findings and explore additional factors influencing vitamin status in PKU.
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 | 0.010 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.036 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".