Correcting poor vitamin D status: Do older adults need higher repletion doses of vitamin D<sub>3</sub> than younger adults?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We conducted an examination of recent studies to determine whether older adults (>or=65 years) need higher levels of supplementary vitamin D than young adults when attempting to replete vitamin D status in deficient subjects, i.e. those with levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D less than 75 nmol/L. As data on repletion with vitamin D(2) have recently been published, we restricted our discussion to the use of vitamin D(3) from dietary supplements, prescriptions for large oral doses, and bolus dosing or injections. Most published dosing regimens failed to achieve 75 nmol/L in most all subjects, whether young adults (<65 years) or older adults (>or=65 years). Whether as daily or bolus oral supplementation, elderly subjects appeared to need more vitamin D3 compared with younger adults, however, baseline levels, endpoints, study duration, compliance, and other factors were different among studies. To ensure most subjects are replete in vitamin D, a daily dose of more than 50 microg (2000 IU) in younger and 125 microg (5000 IU) is required. Other strategies including bolus and loading doses are described. No study reported adverse effects of using oral intakes about the current upper level of 50 microg (2000 IU).
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".