Dietary strategies to maintain adequacy of circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentrations.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The importance of vitamin D intake to nutritional status is a corollary of sunshine deficit. There is a dose-response of serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) concentrations to total vitamin D intake in persons who do not receive UVB exposure. This updated summary of vitamin D intakes and sources in adults and children focuses on data from North America and Europe. We explore the evidence that intakes of vitamin D are inadequate with reference to the Institute of Medicine (IOM) Dietary Reference Intakes. Due to mandatory fortification, usual vitamin D intakes are higher in the US and Canada than most of Europe, with the exception of the Nordic countries. Intakes of vitamin D in national surveys are typically below 5 μg/d in most European countries and vary according to country-specific fortification practices, sex and age. The main source of variation is the contribution from nutritional supplements. Usual vitamin D intake estimates need to capture data on the contributions from fortified and supplemental sources as well as the base diet. The current dietary supply of vitamin D makes it unfeasible for most adults to meet the IOM Estimated Average Requirement of 10 μg/d. While supplements are an effective method for individuals to increase their intake, food fortification represents the best opportunity to increase the vitamin D supply to the population. Well-designed sustainable fortification strategies, which use a range of foods to accommodate diversity, have potential to increase vitamin D intakes across the population distribution and minimize the prevalence of low 25(OH)D concentrations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".