Effectiveness and Safety of a High‐Dose Weekly Vitamin <scp>D</scp> (20,000 <scp>IU</scp> ) Protocol in Older Adults Living in Residential Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To report 25 hydroxyvitamin D (25OHD) concentrations, an indicator of vitamin D status, in older adults living in residential care 1 year after a protocol of weekly 20,000 IU of vitamin D was started. DESIGN: Cross-sectional. SETTING: Five residential care facilities in British Columbia, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Residents aged 65 and older from five facilities (N=236). MEASUREMENTS: Participants provided a blood sample. Demographic and health information was obtained from the medical record. RESULTS: Mean 25OHD was 102 nmol/L (95% confidence interval (CI)=98-106 nmol/L). Three percent of residents had a 25OHD concentration of less than 40 nmol/L, 6% <50 nmol/L, and 19% <75 nmol/L. In those who received 20,000 IU/wk or more for 6 months or longer (n=147), mean 25OHD was 112 nmol/L (95% CI=108-117 nmol/L), and none had a 25OHD level of less than 50 nmol/L. Hypercalcemia (>2.6 mmol/L), a potential consequence of too much vitamin D, was present in 14%, although 25OHD levels did not differ in those with and without hypercalcemia (108 vs 101 nmol/L; P=.17). CONCLUSION: Twelve months after implementation of a 20,000-IU/wk vitamin D protocol for older adults in residential care, mean 25OHD concentrations were high, and there was no evidence of poor vitamin D status. Given the absence of demonstrated benefit of high 25OHD concentrations to the residential care population, dosages less than 20,000 IU/wk of vitamin D are recommended.
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 | 0.011 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".