MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Role of Vitamin D in Pregnancy and Lactation: Insights from Animal Models and Clinical Studies

2012· review· en· W2146528259 on OpenAlexafffund
Christopher S. Kovács

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnual Review of Nutrition · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVitamin D Research Studies
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsCalcitriolVitamin D and neurologyPregnancyEndocrinologyInternal medicineMedicineRicketsLactationCalcium metabolismvitamin D deficiencyCalcitriol receptorOffspringCholecalciferolBreast milkVitaminCalciumBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Maternal adaptations during pregnancy and lactation appear to provide calcium to fetus and neonate without relying on vitamin D or calcitriol. Consequently, the blood calcium, calciotropic hormones, and skeleton appear normal at birth in the offspring of mothers who are severely vitamin D deficient or who lack calcitriol or its receptor. It remains unclear whether skeletal or extraskeletal problems will develop postnatally from exposure to vitamin D deficiency in utero. During the neonatal period, calcitriol-stimulated intestinal calcium absorption becomes the dominant mechanism of calcium delivery. The vitamin D-deficient neonate is at risk to develop hypocalcemia, rickets, and possibly extraskeletal disorders (e.g., type 1 diabetes). Breastfed babies are at higher risk of vitamin D deficiency because normally little vitamin D or 25-hydroxyvitamin D passes into breast milk. Dosing recommendations during pregnancy and lactation should ensure that the baby is born vitamin D sufficient and maintained that way during infancy and beyond.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.110
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.337 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations109
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnual Review of NutritionSame topicVitamin D Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207