Prevalence of Vitamin D Deficiency and Response to Oral Vitamin D Supplementation in Patients Receiving Home Parenteral Nutrition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: The purpose of this study was to document vitamin D status in home parenteral nutrition (HPN) patients and determine if oral vitamin D supplementation has a substantial effect. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of eligible adults enrolled in the Southern Alberta Home Parenteral Nutrition program (n = 15) for a minimum of 6 months was conducted. Serum measurements of 25OHD were recorded and patients were categorized by vitamin D status as follows: sufficient; insufficient; deficient with respective levels of 25OHD ≥75 nmol/L, 27.5-75 nmol/L, and ≤27.5 nmol/L; and mixed. RESULTS: Five of 15 patients had insufficient vitamin D status throughout the study period; all had short bowel syndrome. Nine were in the mixed category; 1 was consistently sufficient, and no one was consistently deficient. Patient demographics were similar between the insufficient and mixed groups. There were no significant differences in health outcomes between the insufficient and mixed vitamin D status groups. The median (interquartile range) dose and duration of vitamin D3 supplementation for the insufficient group was 5000 IU/d (4,000-7,143) for 1,175 (1,145-1,578) total days compared to 3,000 IU/d (1,000-7,143) for 1,529 (111-1,980) days for the mixed group. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients receiving HPN had insufficient vitamin D status. When prescribed high doses of oral vitamin D, patients did not consistently achieve appropriate 25OHD levels. Alternate routes of vitamin D supplementation in patients receiving HPN should be considered. Large multicenter prospective studies are needed to best characterize the relationship between vitamin D dosing for HPN patients and vitamin D status.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".