Vitamin D supplementation of Canadian infants: practices of Montreal mothers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Health policy in North America advocates that all breastfed infants receive a vitamin D supplement of 400 IU per day for the primary prevention of rickets. Despite this recommendation, rickets still occurs in Canada. It is not known whether vitamin D deficiency in the Canadian population is solely attributable to inadequacies in vitamin supplementation. Thus, the evaluation of current practices, including awareness and compliance with recommendations, is clearly needed. The objective of this study was to describe the vitamin D supplementation practices of mothers of newborns living in the Montreal area. This was a cross-sectional telephone survey of 343 mothers delivering a healthy term infant from December 2007 to May 2008 at the Royal Victoria Hospital (Montreal, Que.). Ninety percent of all mothers breastfed their infants during the first 6 months; 53% did so exclusively. Of mothers exclusively breastfeeding, 74% reported meeting the Health Canada recommendation. The main reason for not adhering to the recommendation was the assumption by mothers who began to feed fortified formula (400 IU.L-1) that supplementation was no longer necessary. Fifty percent of infants receiving mixed feedings without supplementation prior to 6 months did not achieve the recommended intake. Receiving advice about supplementation and the higher education of mothers were significant positive determinants of supplementation practices. This work identified infants consuming mixed feedings and those consuming only formula in the first 6 months as groups at high risk for not meeting the recommended 400 IU.day-1 of vitamin D. Therefore there may still be gaps in knowledge regarding 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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".