Vitamin D in the critically ill – update 2024
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review aims to summarize the latest publications on vitamin D focused on critically ill patients. RECENT FINDINGS: Vitamin D deficiency is common in critically ill patients (children and adults) and associated with a higher risk for mortality and morbidity as well as sepsis, acute respiratory failure, acute renal failure and prolonged ICU stay. As it is an inexpensive substance with a wide safety margin, acute treatment in form of a loading dose in addition to ongoing maintenance therapy is an interesting option in the ICU. The potential benefit of acute native (biologically inactive) vitamin D treatment has not fully been answered but even a small survival benefit demonstrable in very large analyses could be relevant to critical care. To date, less than 5000 patients cumulative have been enrolled in randomized controlled trials concerning vitamin D, with substantial heterogeneity in trial design regarding population (with or without deficiency, coronavirus disease 2019, different age groups, underlying illnesses), metabolite, dosing, outcome, and more. SUMMARY: More research is needed, but vitamin D supplementation represents a simple intervention with an excellent safety profile. As adequate vitamin D is essential to the health of multiple organ systems, rapid normalization of deficiency states could translate to benefits across the wide range of diagnoses and organ dysfunctions experienced in the ICU setting. As a minimum, we recommend administering the standard daily dose of vitamin D3 in the critically ill patient.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".