Predicting Deficiency of Vitamin D in Renal Transplant Recipients in Northern Climates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Renal transplant patients have been shown to have a higher risk of bone disease than the general population. The aim of this study was to examine vitamin D status, a modifiable risk factor in bone disease, in the renal transplant population in a northern climate. METHODS: This retrospective observational study included 331 subjects and analyzed demographic, biochemical, and medication information for associations with vitamin D. RESULTS: Of the study population, 45.3% were vitamin D deficient. The percentage of deficient subjects increases to 76.5% if those receiving supplementation are excluded. The mean daily dose of vitamin D was 1275 IU for sufficient patients. For every 1000 IU of vitamin D daily, the risk of deficiency is decreased by 40.3%. Time from transplantation had a significant positive association (P<0.001) in which every year out of transplantation decreased the risk of deficiency by 9.1%. Body mass index had a significant negative association (P=0.012) with vitamin D in which the risk of deficiency increased by 6% for each kilogram per meter squared. Ethnicity was found to be statistically significant on univariate analysis (P=0.034), with white patients having 9.1% decreased risk of deficiency. CONCLUSION: Despite a high rate of supplementation of vitamin D, close to half of the renal transplant population was still deficient. Those who were receiving over 1000 IU daily were more likely to be vitamin D sufficient. Early supplementation after transplantation along with higher doses for non-white patients or patients with a high body mass index may be warranted for normalization of vitamin D status.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".