Vitamin D insufficiency and treatment with oral vitamin D3 in northern-dwelling patients with chronic kidney disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Vitamin D insufficiency is common in people living at northern latitudes and those with chronic kidney disease (CKD). We studied persons with both of these risk factors to determine the prevalence of vitamin D insufficiency and whether serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) levels were affected by oral vitamin D3 supplementation. METHODS: This was a prospective controlled trial of 128 patients with stage 3-5 non-dialysis dependent CKD. Patients were assigned to the intervention (oral vitamin D3 1,000 IU/day) in a 1:1 ratio at the discretion of the attending dietitian. Serum biochemical markers were measured at baseline (May-July) and after 3 months of follow-up. There were 63 control and 65 intervention subjects. RESULTS: Mean 25(OH)D levels increased significantly higher in the treatment group (mean increase from baseline: 10.3+/-10.4 ng/mL vs. 0.8+/-6.8 ng/mL, p<0.0001). This difference remained significant after adjustment for differing baseline characteristics between groups (p<0.0001). Treatment with oral vitamin D3 reduced vitamin D insufficiency by 37%, as compared with a 2% increase in prevalence among the control group (p<0.0001). Considering the entire study population, 93% of patients had levels less than <30 ng/mL at least once during the study. CONCLUSION: Vitamin D insufficiency is highly prevalent in northern-dwelling patients with stage 3-5 CKD, and is moderated by oral supplementation with 1,000 IU of vitamin D3 daily.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".