MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7074229013

Effect of vitamin D supplementation on tibial cartilage volume and knee pain among patients with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis: a randomized clinical trial

2016· article· en· W7074229013 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicDiverse Scientific and Economic Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOsteoarthritisWOMACVitamin D and neurologyPlaceboKnee painCartilageRandomized controlled trialAdverse effect
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p><strong>IMPORTANCE:</strong> Observational studies suggest that vitamin D supplementation is associated with benefits for knee osteoarthritis, but current trial evidence is contradictory.</p> <p><strong>OBJECTIVE:</strong> To compare the effects of vitamin D supplementation vs placebo on knee pain and knee cartilage volume in patients with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis and low vitamin D levels.</p> <p><strong>DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:</strong> A multicenter randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial in Tasmania and Victoria, Australia. Participants with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis and low 25-hydroxyvitamin D (12.5-60 nmol/L) were enrolled from June 2010 to December 2011. The trial was completed in December 2013.</p> <p><strong>INTERVENTIONS:</strong> Participants were randomly assigned to receive monthly treatment with oral vitamin D<sub>3</sub> (50,000 IU; n = 209) or an identical placebo (n = 204) for 2 years.</p> <p><strong>MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES:</strong> Primary outcomes were change in tibial cartilage volume (assessed using magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]) and change in the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) pain score (0 [no pain] to 500 [worst pain]) from baseline to month 24. Secondary outcomes were cartilage defects and bone marrow lesions (assessed using MRI).</p> <p><strong>RESULTS:</strong> Of 413 enrolled participants (mean age, 63.2 years; 50% women), 340 (82.3%) completed the study. The level of 25-hydroxyvitamin D increased more in the vitamin D group (40.6 nmol/L) than in the placebo group (6.7 nmol/L) (<i>P</i> < .001) over 2 years. There were no significant differences in annual change of tibial cartilage volume or WOMAC pain score. There were no significant differences in change of tibiofemoral cartilage defects or change in tibiofemoral bone marrow lesions. Adverse events (≥ 1 per patient) occurred in 56 participants in the vitamin D group and in 37 participants in the placebo group (<i>P</i> = .04). [table: see text].</p> <p><strong>CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:</strong> Among patients with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis and low serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels, vitamin D supplementation, compared with placebo, did not result in significant differences in change in MRI-measured tibial cartilage volume or WOMAC knee pain score over 2 years. These findings do not support the use of vitamin D supplementation for preventing tibial cartilage loss or improving WOMAC knee pain in patients with knee osteoarthritis.</p>

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations10
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshareSame topicDiverse Scientific and Economic StudiesFrench-language works237,207