Vitamin D Deficiency in Patients Receiving Home Parenteral Nutrition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In addition to its role in bone metabolism, vitamin D has important immunomodulatory and antineoplastic effects. Patients on home parenteral nutrition (HPN) receive most of their vitamin D from intravenous (IV) supplementation. Vitamin D deficiency is common in the general population, and the adequacy of vitamin D supplementation in HPN patients is unclear. The purpose of this study is to determine the vitamin D status of patients on HPN. METHODS: Consecutive patients seen in a regional home nutrition program had their oral and IV vitamin D intakes determined. Plasma 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels were measured in all patients. Intake of calcium, magnesium, and phosphate were also determined. RESULTS: The mean 25-hydroxyvitamin D level in 22 patients receiving HPN for a mean of 33.5 months (range, 1-177) was 42 nmol/L. Vitamin D deficiency was present in 15 (68%) patients and vitamin D insufficiency in 6 (27%) patients. The mean dietary vitamin D intake was 79.5 IU per day, while the mean IV supplementation was 166 IU per day. CONCLUSIONS: In this study of a regional Canadian HPN program, there was a high prevalence of vitamin D deficiency/insufficiency affecting virtually all patients. All patients receiving HPN should be supplemented with vitamin D and have their 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels monitored. Further studies are required to determine optimal methods and dosing of vitamin D replacement using oral supplements or ultraviolet light therapy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".