Effects of vitamin D3 supplementation on the recovery of hospitalized burn patients: a randomized double-blind controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Burn patients, due to their damaged skin, may not be able to synthesize vitamin D. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the effects of vitamin D supplementation on the recovery of hospitalized burn patients. Fifty-four patients participated in a randomized controlled trial. Eighteen patients were randomly assigned to group C (control, received gelatin soft gel as placebo), 18 patients to group D1 (received 1000 IU/day vitamin D), and 18 patients to group D2 (received 3000 IU/day vitamin D). After supplementation, wound biopsy and blood samples were obtained from the patients. Weight, height, 25(OH)D level, wound healing, scar formation, quality of pain, and blood parameters were evaluated. There were no significant differences in the serum vitamin D levels between the groups at admission (P = 0.52), and 81.5% of the participants were deficient, with a noteworthy increase during study in supplemented groups (P < 0.001). The Bates–Jensen Wound Assessment Tool demonstrated significant differences in wound healing between the C group and the D1 and D2 groups (P = 0.003), and the supplemented groups experienced greater improvement. The D2 group showed significant differences in thickness and total score on the Vancouver scar scale up to three months after discharge (P = 0.03). Moreover, there was a notable decrease in insulin requirements and the number of injected insulin units in the supplemented groups compared with those in group C (P = 0.006 and P = 0.01, respectively). In addition, shorter hospitalization was observed in group D2 (P = 0.04). Supplementation with vitamin D at doses of 1000 and 3000 IU/day improved wound healing and decreased scar thickness as well as exogenous insulin requirements. Overall, at 3000 IU/day, better results were achieved than at 1000 IU/day. This article is registered in 24/04/2020 on the Iranian Randomized Clinical Trials Registry (trial registration number (IRCT, code: IRCT20200420047141N1.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".