MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407339788 · doi:10.1186/s40795-025-01024-2

Effects of vitamin D3 supplementation on the recovery of hospitalized burn patients: a randomized double-blind controlled trial

2025· article· en· W4407339788 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Elahe Ghadimi, Roozbeh Rahbar, Elham Jafarzade, Anahita Mansoori

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Nutrition · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBurn Injury Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAhvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialVitaminInternal medicinePlaceboTotal body surface areaGastroenterologyVitamin D and neurologyClinical nutritionWound healingSurgeryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 D 1 (received 1000 IU/day vitamin D), and 18 patients to group D 2 (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 D 1 and D 2 groups ( P = 0.003), and the supplemented groups experienced greater improvement. The D 2 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 D 2 ( 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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.280 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC NutritionSame topicBurn Injury Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207