Prevalence of vitamin D deficiency and its determinants in Australian adults aged 25 years and older: a national, population‐based study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Vitamin D deficiency is recognized as a global public health problem, but the population-based prevalence of deficiency and its determinants in Australian adults is not known. This study evaluated the vitamin D status of Australian adults aged ≥25 years and risk factors associated with vitamin D deficiency in this population. DESIGN AND PATIENTS: We studied a national sample of 11,247 Australian adults enrolled in the 1999/2000 Australian Diabetes, Obesity and Lifestyle (AusDiab) study drawn from 42 randomly selected districts throughout Australia. MEASUREMENTS: Serum concentrations of 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] were measured by immunoassay. Vitamin D deficiency was defined as a concentration <50 nmol/l. Information on demographic and lifestyle factors was derived from interview-administered questionnaires. RESULTS: The mean serum 25(OH)D concentration was 63 nmol/l (95% CI: 59-67 nmol/l). Only 4% of the population had a level <25 nmol/l, but the prevalence of vitamin D deficiency (<50 nmol/l) was 31% (22% men; 39% women); 73% had levels <75 nmol/l. The prevalence of vitamin D deficiency increased significantly with age, was greater in women, in those of non-Europid origin, in the obese and those who were physically inactive and with a higher level of education. Deficiency was also more common during winter and in people residing in southern Australia (latitude >35°S); 42% of women and 27% of men were deficient during summer-autumn, which increased to 58% and 35%, respectively, during winter-spring. CONCLUSION: Vitamin D deficiency is common in Australia affecting nearly one-third of adults aged ≥25 years. This indicates that strategies are needed at the population level to improve vitamin D status of Australians.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".