Vitamin D status of Canadians as measured in the 2007 to 2009 Canadian Health Measures Survey.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Vitamin D deficiency is a global health problem, but little is known about the vitamin D status of Canadians. DATA AND METHODS: The data are from the 2007 to 2009 Canadian Health Measures Survey, which collected blood samples. Descriptive statistics (frequencies, means) were used to estimate 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] concentrations among a sample of 5,306 individuals aged 6 to 79 years, representing 28.2 million Canadians from all regions, by age group, sex, racial background, month of blood collection, and frequency of milk consumption. The prevalence of deficiency and the percentages of the population meeting different cut-off concentrations were assessed. RESULTS: The mean concentration of 25(OH)D for the Canadian population aged 6 to 79 years was 67.7 nmol/L. The mean was lowest among men aged 20 to 39 years (60.7 nmol/L) and highest among boys aged 6 to 11 (76.8 nmol/L). Deficiency (less than 27.5 nmol/L) was detected in 4% of the population. However, 10% of Canadians had concentrations considered inadequate for bone health (less than 37.5 nmol/L) according to 1997 Institute of Medicine (IOM) Standards (currently under review). Concentrations measured in November-March were below those measured in April-October. White racial background and frequent milk consumption were significantly associated with higher concentrations. INTERPRETATION: As measured by plasma 25(OH)D, 4% of Canadians aged 6 to 79 years were vitamin D-deficient, according to 1997 IOM standards (currently under review). Based on these standards, 10% of the population had inadequate concentrations for bone health.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".