A 250 mu g/week dose of vitamin D was as effective as a 50 mu g/d dose in healthy adults, but a regimen of four weekly followed by monthly doses of 1250 mu g raised the risk of hypercalciuria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Free to read The risk of vitamin D insufficiency is increased in persons having limited sunlight exposure and dietary vitamin D. Supplementation compliance might be improved with larger doses taken less often, but this may increase the potential for side effects. The objective of the present study was to determine whether a weekly or weekly/monthly regimen of vitamin D supplementation is as effective as daily supplementation without increasing the risk of side effects. Participants were forty-eight healthy adults who were randomly assigned for 3 months to placebo or one of three supplementation regimens: 50 μg/d (2000 IU/d, analysed dose 70 μg/d), 250 μg/week (10 000 IU/week, analysed dose 331 μg/week) or 1250 μg/week (50 000 IU/week, analysed dose 1544 μg/week) for 4 weeks and then 1250 μg/month for 2 months. Daily and weekly doses were equally effective at increasing serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D, which was significantly greater than baseline in all the supplemented groups after 30 d of treatment. Subjects in the 1250 μg treatment group, who had a BMI >26 kg/m2, had a steady increase in urinary Ca in the first 3 weeks of supplementation, and, overall, the relative risk of hypercalciuria was higher in the 1250 μg group than in the placebo group (P= 0·01). Although vitamin D supplementation remains a controversial issue, these data document that supplementing with ≤ 250 μg/week ( ≤ 10 000 IU/week) can improve or maintain vitamin D status in healthy populations without the risk of hypercalciuria, but 24 h urinary Ca excretion should be evaluated in healthy persons receiving vitamin D3 supplementation in weekly single doses of 1250 μg (50 000 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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".