Association of Vitamin D Deficiency With Distal Biceps Injury: A Retrospective Analysis of 336,320 Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study explores the association between vitamin D deficiency and distal biceps tendon injuries, illustrating that, although vitamin D deficiency is associated with prolonged hospital stays and various musculoskeletal problems, its connection to distal biceps tendon injuries is unknown. HYPOTHESIS: Vitamin D deficiency is associated with an elevated risk of distal biceps injury but not with increased rates of subsequent surgery or revision surgery. STUDY DESIGN: Case-control study. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 3. METHODS: A 1:1 matched retrospective comparative study of 336,320 vitamin-D-deficient patients was performed using PearlDiver data (between January 1, 2011 and October 31, 2018). Cohorts, with a mean age of 55.7 ± 13.2 years, underwent multivariate logistic regression to calculate distal biceps tendon injury and surgical repair incidence according to age and sex, while controlling for demographics and comorbidities. RESULTS: The 1-year incidence of distal biceps tendinopathy in vitamin-D-deficient patients was 118 per 100,000 person-years (95% CI) compared with 44.3 per 100,000 person-years in matched controls. Male patients with vitamin D deficiency were at a greater risk for distal biceps tendinopathy after 1 and 2 years (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 2.81, 2.08-3.83; aOR = 2.80, 2.21-3.56). Female patients were also at a greater risk after both years (aOR = 1.69, 1.27-2.27; aOR = 1.57, 1.26-1.96). Vitamin D deficiency was not associated with an elevated risk of surgical repair or revision surgery. CONCLUSION: In a nationwide cohort, a diagnosis of vitamin D deficiency elevated the risk of distal biceps tendinopathy but did not raise the rate of surgical repair or revision. As a result, prevention strategies in the form of vitamin supplementation should be increased for athletes. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: These findings emphasize the clinical relevance of monitoring vitamin D levels in patients at risk for musculoskeletal injuries, and providing adequate care to those involved in high-demand physical activities. STRENGTH OF RECOMMENDATION: B.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".