The Relationship Between Parathyroid Hormone and 25-Hydroxyvitamin D During and After Pregnancy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: There is debate about whether women may need greater vitamin D supplementation when pregnant. However, it is unclear whether the 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25-OH-D) concentration required for suppression of PTH (ie, suggesting vitamin D sufficiency) differs between pregnancy and the nongravid state. OBJECTIVE: To systematically characterize the relationship between 25-OH-D and PTH during and after pregnancy. DESIGN/SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: In this study, 468 women underwent serial assessment of serum 25-OH-D and PTH in late pregnancy, at 3 months postpartum, and at 12 months postpartum. At each visit, segmented regression analysis was performed to: 1) determine the best model to fit the relationship between 25-OH-D and PTH; and 2) identify the 25-OH-D threshold above which PTH is maximally suppressed. RESULTS: Serum 25-OH-D and PTH were inversely correlated at each of the pregnancy (r = −0.33; P < .0001), 3 months postpartum (r = −0.37; P < .0001), and 12 months postpartum (r = −0.34; P < .0001) assessments. In pregnancy, PTH first rises when 25-OH-D falls below 82 nmol/L (95% confidence interval, 61–103) and follows a linear relationship with declining 25-OH-D thereafter. In contrast, at both postpartum visits, there was a curvilinear relationship between 25-OH-D and PTH below the 25-OH-D threshold at which PTH is suppressed (71 nmol/L [61–81] at 3 months and 81 nmol/L [61–100] at 12 months). The 25-OH-D thresholds for PTH suppression in pregnancy and at 3 and 12 months postpartum were not significantly different from one another (all pairwise P ≥ .26). CONCLUSION: Although the shape of the relationship between 25-OH-D and PTH differs between pregnancy and the postpartum, the 25-OH-D thresholds for PTH suppression are similar, supporting comparable targets for vitamin D supplementation.
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 | 0.011 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".