Vitamin <scp>D</scp> supplementation is associated with higher serum 25<scp>OHD</scp> in <scp>A</scp>sian and <scp>W</scp>hite infants living in <scp>V</scp>ancouver, <scp>C</scp>anada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To prevent rickets, the Health Canada and the American Academy of Pediatrics recommend that breastfed infants receive a daily vitamin D supplement of 10 μg d(-1) . Compliance with this recommendation is variable and its effect on infant vitamin D status is unclear. We measured serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25OHD) in Asian immigrant (n=28) and White (n=37) mothers and their infants aged 2-4 months living in Vancouver (49°N). Mothers completed health and demographic questionnaires. All subjects were term infants who were primarily breastfed. Analysis of variance, χ(2) , multiple regression and logistic regression analysis were performed as appropriate. Mean 25OHD of the infants was 31 (95% confidence interval 28-34) ng mL(-1) . Only two infants had a 25OHD concentration indicative of deficiency, <10 ng mL(-1) . Of the infants, 14% (n=9) and 49% (n=32) were vitamin D insufficient based on two commonly used cut-offs of 20 and 30 ng mL(-1) , respectively. Fifty-eight (89%) infants had been given a vitamin D supplement. Mean 25OHD was 9.4 ng mL(-1) higher in infants consuming ≥10 μg d(-1) of vitamin D from supplements vs. those consuming less (P=0.003). Mother's 25OHD, season, skin colour or ethnicity (Asian vs. White) did not influence infant 25OHD. The infants in our study, most of whom received vitamin D supplements, were generally protected against low 25OHD. The study was limited by sample size and the nature of the cross-sectional study design.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".