Implications for 25-Hydroxyvitamin D testing of public health policies about the benefits and risks of Vitamin D fortification and supplementation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vitamin D status is of interest to physicians caring for patients in poor general health. The tool for assessing vitamin D status is the serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) concentration. Based on clinical trials and epidemiology the low end of the desirable concentration of this analyte generally ranges from 50 nmol/L to 75 nmol/L. Based on clinical trials, the high end of the safe concentration for 25(OH)D is at about 225 nmol/L, with an unspecified margin of safety beyond that. In the absence of sunlight, 225 nmol/L is achieved with prolonged consumption of about 10,000 IU/day (250 μg/day) of vitamin D3. Hence that intake should be regarded as safe, and in the absence of sunshine, comparable vitamin D-wise to abundant sun exposure. Government policy is very conservative, and consequently, the latest advice from the Institute of Medicine for Canada and the USA specifies that in the absence of sunshine, a recommended dietary allowance (RDA) of 600 IU/day (15 μg/day) of vitamin D will provide a serum 25(OH)D concentration of at least 50 nmol/L. Dietary-vitamin D-intake statistics for adult populations show that average intakes from food and supplements are 200-400 IU/day (5-10 μg/day), respectively. Therefore, adult populations are consuming vitamin D in amounts far below the RDA. Even if adults were to consume the RDA for vitamin D, it would still not be enough to ensure 25(OH)D > 50 nmol/L. The implication of all these things for the clinical laboratory is that there will continue to be a demand for 25(OH)D measurements for many years to come.
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 | 0.066 | 0.233 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.028 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.032 | 0.003 |
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".