Vitamin D in patients with psoriasis compared with healthy individuals or with other diseases: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Psoriasis is a chronic skin disorder characterized by the accelerated proliferation of keratinocytes, which leads to the formation of scaly plaques and a chronic inflammatory response. Vitamin D is an inhibitor of dendritic cells acting as an immune modulator; therefore, vitamin D deficiency could explain the increased incidence of psoriasis for the reduction of anti‐inflammatory activity. Objectives To compare serum 25‐hydroxy vitamin D levels in patients with psoriasis and healthy individuals. Methods A systematic review of the literature and meta‐analysis was performed by searching PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Lilacs, Ovid and ProQuest databases to find the best available evidence from 2013 to 2024. We also conducted a snowballing literature search to expand the included studies. The methodological quality and risk of bias were assessed through the Newcastle–Ottawa scale. A random effect meta‐analysis model was applied. Results A total of 27 articles were included in the systematic review of these three cross‐sectional studies included in the first meta‐analysis, the synthesized standardized mean difference (SMD) in serum vitamin D between psoriatic arthritis and psoriasis was −0.13 (95% CI [−0.46, 0.20], p = 0.45). The second meta‐analysis included two case controls, the synthesized SMD in serum vitamin D between psoriasis and controls was −0.71 (95% CI [−0.85, −0.57], p = 0.00). Conclusions No difference in vitamin D levels between psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis was found. Psoriasis patients have lower vitamin D levels than the general population. However, further studies are essential to understand how vitamin D levels contribute to the pathogenesis of psoriasis or vice versa and its role in severity.
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 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.043 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 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".