Cod liver oil consumption at different periods of life and bone mineral density in old age
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cod liver oil is a traditional source of vitamin D in Iceland, and regular intake is recommended partly for the sake of bone health. However, the association between lifelong consumption of cod liver oil and bone mineral density (BMD) in old age is unclear. The present study attempted to assess the associations between intake of cod liver oil in adolescence, midlife, and old age, and hip BMD in old age, as well as associations between cod liver oil intake in old age and serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) concentration. Participants of the Age, Gene/Environment Susceptibility-Reykjavik Study (age 66-96 years; n 4798), reported retrospectively cod liver oil intake during adolescence and midlife, as well as the one now in old age, using a validated FFQ. BMD of femoral neck and trochanteric region was measured by volumetric quantitative computed tomography, and serum 25(OH)D concentration was measured by means of a direct, competitive chemiluminescence immunoassay. Associations were assessed using linear regression models. No significant association was seen between retrospective cod liver oil intake and hip BMD in old age. Current intake of aged men was also not associated with hip BMD, while aged women with daily intakes had z-scores on average 0.1 higher, compared with those with an intake of < once/week. Although significant, this difference is small, and its clinical relevance is questionable. Intake of aged participants was positively associated with serum 25(OH)D: individuals with intakes of < once/week, one to six time(s)/week and daily intake had concentrations of approximately 40, 50 and 60 nmol/l respectively (P for trend < 0.001).
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".