Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vitamin D deficiency and insufficiency are common in patients with CKD. Association studies suggest that low 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 (25-OH-D3) is a harbinger of poor outcomes in these patients. Serum 25-OH-D represents the best biomarker of vitamin D status, but there is much debate surrounding the performance of some of the assay methods. Programs such as the Vitamin D Standardization Program and Vitamin D External Quality Assessment Scheme (DEQAS) in the United Kingdom have allowed us to assess the accuracy and reproducibility of the available methods. Liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry-based methods for serum 25-OH-D measurement are emerging as more accurate and reliable alternatives to the immunoassay-based methods that have dominated over the past 2 decades. There is a renewed optimism that serum 25-OH-D is a useful biomarker to be used in patients with CKD, in particular to diagnose vitamin D deficiency and monitor vitamin D therapy. This commentary discusses some of the methodologic problems associated with serum 25-OH-D assays and their resolution, and looks forward to the future of vitamin D testing.
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 | 0.030 | 0.100 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".