Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Few subjects have evoked as much interest in the past five to 10 years as vitamin D. Whereas the primary objective a few years ago was the prevention of rickets, the presence of vitamin D receptors in most cells of the body along with evidence that vitamin D has a role in the prevention and modification of disease has led to a re-examination of what defines optimal plasma 25-hydroxyvitamin D status (1). Using these much higher levels to define adequate vitamin D status means that the prevalence of vitamin D deficiency is much higher than previously believed. Roth (2), in the present issue of Paediatrics & Child Health, gives advice to parents regarding vitamin D that may be misleading and premature. It is true that present evidence suggests that rickets can be prevented in the first year of life by a total of 400 IU/day of vitamin D from all sources. However, this ignores the increasing awareness of the importance of adequate vitamin D levels in the prevention of other vitamin D-associated conditions. Furthermore, grades of Levels of Evidence of the references he cites in Part A are not provided. Nor does he stress the importance of an adequate maternal vitamin D status during pregnancy for the developing fetus and newborn, a subject that has been associated with many good studies. He also suggests that vitamin D supplementation beyond infancy is not necessary if toddlers are drinking at least two cups of milk each day. Many toddlers do not drink that much milk and are at risk of deficiency. We should remember the Manitoba experience with vitamin D deficiency in First Nations groups (3,4). Also, the Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS) document titled “Sun Safety”, his reference 16, does not conflict with the CPS recommendation of sun exposure. Roth bases his suggestions regarding vitamin D supplementation on the positions of the Institute of Medicine and Health Canada, which have not been consistent. In 1998 and again in September 2009 (5), the Office of Dietary Supplements, National Institutes of Health suggested that a total intake of 5 μg (200 IU)/day for children from birth to 13 years was adequate. In 1998, Health Canada was in agreement, but in 2004, the recommendation was empirically changed to 400 IU/day (6). Unfortunately, rickets continues to be a problem in Canada, with 104 confirmed cases in Canada from July 2002 to July 2004 (7), with a predominance among breastfed infants and dark-skinned individuals living in the north, in spite of CPS recommendations regarding supplementation. Furthermore, studies of northern Canadians have consistently shown a high prevalence of vitamin D insufficiency and deficiency. The 2007 CPS position statement “Vitamin D supplementation: Recommendations for Canadian mothers and infants” included recommendations based on the best available evidence at the time and is still timely. The field was thoroughly researched and the paper was reviewed by many paediatric and nutritional experts. Since then, there have been no studies suggesting a change in approach. With regard to advice to mothers, there is no reason to change the recommendation of infant vitamin D intake of 400 IU/day during the first year of life, increasing it to 800 IU/day between October and April. This recommendation was originally suggested in the CPS statement of 2002, and there have been no reported problems with this dose. Two events may modify our position. The first is a McGill University double-blind vitamin D dose-response study (8) in infants currently getting under way. Unfortunately all of the subjects proposed will come from the Montreal, Quebec, area. There is a need for a similar study in a region much further north. The second is the report of the expert committee of the Institute of Medicine due in May 2010. This report will focus on the effect of vitamin D intake on circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D and health outcomes, and the levels of intake associated with adverse effects. Meanwhile, there is no reason to modify recommendations in the CPS position statement.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,046 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,026 | 0,025 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,034 | 0,018 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».