Comparison of Daily, Weekly, and Monthly Vitamin D3 in Ethanol Dosing Protocols for Two Months in Elderly Hip Fracture Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Different dosing protocols have been used for vitamin D supplementation, but there has been a lack of comparative data among them. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to determine whether the same cumulative dose of vitamin D3 produces different effects if it is given daily, weekly, or monthly. DESIGN: Women, age 81 +/- 8 yr (+/- sd, n = 48), who had undergone surgery to repair hip fracture were randomized to vitamin D3-supplementation protocols at 1,500 IU daily, or 10,500 IU once weekly, or 45,000 IU once every 28 d. The primary outcome measure was the serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] concentration attained. RESULTS: Initially, serum 25(OH)D concentrations for daily, weekly, and monthly groups were, respectively, 15.13 +/- 6.9, 15.7 +/- 10.1, and 16.2 +/- 10.1 ng/ml. By d 7, these had increased significantly in all the groups (P < 0.001). On the first day after the monthly dose, both serum 25(OH)D and serum 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D had increased significantly (P < 0.012 each), whereas these did not change significantly on the day after daily or weekly doses. After 2 months, serum 25(OH)D with daily, weekly, and monthly dosing were, respectively, 33.2 +/- 8.5, 29.2 +/- 8.9, and 37.1 +/- 10.3 ng/ml; there were no significant differences among these values. CONCLUSIONS: Supplementation with vitamin D can be achieved equally well with daily, weekly, or monthly dosing frequencies. Therefore, the choice of dose frequency can be based on whichever approach will optimize an individual's adherence with long-term vitamin D supplementation.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".