MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1506002267 · doi:10.1002/jbmr.2536

Serum 25-Hydroxyvitamin D Levels: Variability, Knowledge Gaps, and the Concept of a Desirable Range

2015· review· en· W1506002267 on OpenAlexaff
Ghada El‐Hajj Fuleihan, Roger Bouillon, B.L. Clarke, Marlene Chakhtoura, Cyrus Cooper, Michael R. McClung, Ravinder J. Singh

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bone and Mineral Research · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVitamin D Research Studies
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Nutrition, Metabolism and DiabetesOsteoporosis Canada
FundersMedical Research CouncilNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchAmerican University of Beirut
KeywordsVitamin D and neurologyvitamin D deficiencyHypovitaminosisMedicineDemographyEnvironmental healthBiologyEndocrinologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hypovitaminosis D is prevalent worldwide but proportions vary widely between regions, depending on genetic and lifestyle factors, the threshold to define deficiency, and accuracy of 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25OHD) assays used. Latitude, pollution, concealing clothing, sun exposure, gender, dietary habits, and lack of government regulation account for up to 50% in variations in serum 25OHD levels, whereas genetic polymorphisms in the vitamin D pathway account for less than 5%. Organizations/societies have developed guidelines for recommended desirable 25OHD levels and vitamin D doses to reach them, but their applicability across age groups and populations are still debated. This article and the accompanying online Supporting Information highlight sources of variations in circulating 25OHD levels, uncertainties and knowledge gaps, and analytical problems facing 25OHD assays, while keeping efficacy and safety data as the dominant factors when defining a desirable range for 25OHD levels. We propose a desirable range of 20 to 40 ng/mL (50 to 100 nmol/L), provided precise and accurate assays are used. Although slightly lower levels, 15 to 20 ng/mL, may be sufficient for some infants and adults, higher levels, 40 to 60 ng/mL, may still be safe. This desirable range allows physicians to tailor treatment while taking season, lifestyle, vitamin D intake, and other sources of variation into account. We reserve 25OHD measurements for at-risk patients, defined by disease or lifestyle, and the use of 25OHD assays calibrated against the recommended international standards. Most target groups reach desirable target levels by a daily intake of 400 to 600 IU for children and 800 IU for adults. A total daily allowance of vitamin D of up to 1000 IU in the pediatric age groups, and up to 2000 IU in adults, tailored to an individual patient risk profile, is probably safe over long durations. Additional data are needed to validate the proposed range and vitamin D doses, especially in children, pregnant women, and non-white populations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.896
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.242
GPT teacher head0.472
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations174
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Bone and Mineral ResearchSame topicVitamin D Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207