The Relationship of Serum 25-Hydroxyvitamin D and Insulin Resistance among Nondiabetic Canadians: A Longitudinal Analysis of Participants of a Preventive Health Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Observational and intervention studies have revealed inconsistent findings with respect to the relationship between vitamin D and insulin resistance. No intervention studies have been conducted in community samples whereas this may be particularly relevant to the primary prevention of type 2 diabetes (T2D) and cardiovascular disease (CVD). In the present study we examined whether temporal improvements in vitamin D status, measured as serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D], reduce the risk of insulin resistance among individuals without T2D. We accessed and analyzed data from 5730 nondiabetic participants with repeated measures of serum 25(OH)D who enrolled in a preventive health program. We used the homeostatic model assessment for insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) and applied logistic regression to quantify the independent contribution of baseline serum 25(OH)D and temporal increases in 25(OH)D on HOMA-IR. The median time between baseline and follow up was 1.1 year. On average serum 25(OH)D concentrations increased from 89 nanomoles per liter (nmol/L) at baseline to 122 nmol/L at follow up. Univariate analyses showed that relative to participants with baseline serum 25(OH)D less than 50 nmol/L, participants with baseline concentrations of "50-<75", "75-<100", "100-<125", and ≥125 nmol/L were 0.76 (95% confidence intervals: 0.61-0.95), 0.54 (0.43-0.69), 0.48 (0.36-0.64) and 0.36 (0.27-0.49) times as likely to have insulin resistance at follow up, respectively. More importantly, relative to participants without temporal increases in 25(OH)D, those with increases in serum 25(OH)D of "<25", "25-<50", "50-<75", "≥75" nmol/L were 0.92 (0.72-1.17), 0.86 (0.65-1.13), 0.66 (0.47-0.93), and 0.74 (0.55-0.99) times as likely to have insulin resistance at follow up, respectively. In the subgroup of participants without insulin resistance at baseline, this was 0.96 (0.72-1.27), 0.78 (0.56-1.10), 0.66 (0.44-0.99), and 0.67 (0.48-0.94), respectively. These observations suggest that improvements in vitamin D status reduce the risk for insulin resistance and herewith may contribute to the primary prevention of T2D and CVD.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".