Assessment of supplement use (including vitamin <scp>D</scp>) in <scp>I</scp>nuvialuit adults in the <scp>N</scp>orthwest <scp>T</scp>erritories, <scp>C</scp>anada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Inuvialuit of Arctic Canada are at high risk for inadequate vitamin D status as a result of rapid dietary transitions and a lack of solar ultraviolet B exposure. This may have implications for the development of adverse skeletal diseases, cardiovascular diseases and cancers. Data are limited regarding supplement use in Arctic Aboriginal populations. The present study aimed to describe the type and extent of supplement use, emphasising vitamin D, and to identify differences between supplement users and non-users. METHODS: Supplement information was collected from a population-specific quantitative food frequency questionnaire in three communities in the Northwest Territories, Canada, as part of a cross-sectional study. Data were analysed for frequency of supplementation and types of supplements. Users and non-users were compared in terms of age, sex, body mass index, education, marital status, income support, employment and chronic disease diagnosis using nonparametric tests and the chi-squared test. RESULTS: Response rates ranged from 65% to 85%. Included in the analysis were 192 Inuvialuit (45 males, 147 females) with a mean (SD) age of 43.6 (13.9) years. Twenty-three percent reported using a supplement, with multivitamins being the most common. Three percent indicated taking a vitamin D-containing supplement. No significant differences between supplement users and non-users were found. CONCLUSIONS: Despite limited sun exposure for many months of the year, a small proportion of Inuvialuit adults were using supplements, and specifically vitamin D-containing supplements. Future population-based intervention strategies should promote consumption of vitamin D rich foods and encourage the use of vitamin D supplements if diet alone is unable to meet recommendations.
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 | 0.001 | 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".