Impact of Vitamin D Supplementation on Gross Motor Development of Healthy Term Infants: A Randomized Dose-Response Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: In addition to benefits for bone health, vitamin D is implicated in muscle function in children and adults. AIMS: To determine if vitamin D dosage positively correlated with gross motor development at 3 and 6 months of age. We hypothesized that higher doses would be associated with higher scores for gross motor skills. METHODS: A consecutive sample of 55 healthy, term, and breastfed infants from Montreal, Canada were recruited from a randomized trial of vitamin D supplementation between 2009 and 2012. Infants were randomized to 400 International Units (IU) (n = 19), 800 IU (n = 18) or 1,200 IU (n = 18) vitamin D3/day. Motor performance at 3 and 6 months was quantified by the Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS). Plasma vitamin D3 metabolites were measured by tandem mass spectrometry. RESULTS: AIMS scores did not differ at 3 months. However, total AIMS scores and sitting subscores were significantly higher at 6 months in infants receiving 400 IU/day compared to 800 IU/day and 1,200 IU/day groups (p < .05). There were weak negative correlations with length and C-3 epimer of 25(OH)D. CONCLUSIONS: In contrast to our hypothesis, gross motor achievements were significantly higher in infants receiving 400 IU/day vitamin D. Our findings also support longer infants being slightly delayed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".