Total Duration of Breastfeeding, Vitamin D Supplementation, and Serum Levels of 25-Hydroxyvitamin D
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine the association between total breastfeeding duration and serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25-OHD) and to explore whether vitamin D supplementation influences this association. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study of healthy children between September 2011 and August 2013 through the TARGet Kids! primary health care research network. Of the 4533 eligible children, we included only the 2508 who had 25-OHD measured. We assessed adjusted associations of total breastfeeding duration (in months) with serum 25-OHD and in supplemented versus nonsupplemented children, with the odds of 25-OHD less than 20 nanograms per milliliter. RESULTS: Each 1-month increase in total breastfeeding duration was associated with a 0.12 nanograms per milliliter lower median serum 25-OHD (95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.21 ng/mL, -0.02 ng/mL) among children who were not supplemented. The odds of serum 25-OHD less than 20 nanograms per milliliter increased by 6% (odds ratio [OR] = 1.06; 95% CI = 1.03, 1.10) for every 1-month increase in total breastfeeding duration among nonsupplemented children. The interaction between vitamin D supplementation, duration of breastfeeding, and median serum 25-OHD was statistically significant (P = .04). CONCLUSIONS: Breastfed children who were not supplemented, particularly those breastfed more than 1 year, appear to have lower vitamin D status. Vitamin D supplementation may mitigate this risk. These findings support recommendations for supplementation during breastfeeding of any duration.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".