The 2011 Report on Dietary Reference Intake for Vitamin D: Where Do We Go From Here?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: The Institute of Medicine (IOM) report on dietary reference intakes (DRI) for vitamin D is reviewed, along with its implications. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Evidence-based reviews were completed; the IOM committee conducted its own literature search, an open public workshop, and two open sessions, and maintained a public web site for stakeholder input. The consensus report of the 14 scientists on the committee was reviewed by a panel of experts. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Only bone health could be used as an indicator for DRI development. Evidence for extraskeletal outcomes was inadequate, inconsistent, or insufficient to develop DRI. The recommended dietary allowance was found to be 600 IU/d for ages 1-70 yr, corresponding on average to a serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25OHD) level of at least 50 nmol/liter (20 ng/ml), and 800 IU/d for those older than 70 yr. Comparison with current levels of 25OHD in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey population survey revealed that the vitamin D intake in the United States and Canada is adequate. An upper limit was set at 4000 IU/d for adults, corresponding to an average serum 25OHD level of 125 nmol/liter (50 ng/ml). CONCLUSION: Previous reports of an epidemic of vitamin D deficiency in North America were based on an overestimation of adequacy. Population screening with serum 25OHD is therefore not warranted. Current laboratory reference ranges for serum 25OHD are overestimated and should be revised. Practice guidelines to treat disease should not be applied to the healthy American population where use of the DRI is appropriate.
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 | 0.035 | 0.109 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.009 |
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".