5-Hydroxyvitamin D concentration in paediatric cancer patients from Scotland: a prospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Children with cancer are potentially at a high risk of plasma 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) inadequacy, and despite UK vitamin D supplementation guidelines their implementation remains inconsistent. Thus, we aimed to investigate 25(OH)D concentration and factors contributing to 25(OH)D inadequacy in paediatric cancer patients. A prospective cohort study of Scottish children aged 75 nmol/l). In all, eighty-two patients (median age 3·9, interquartile ranges (IQR) 1·9-8·8; 56 % males) and thirty-five controls (median age 6·2, IQR 4·8-9·1; 49 % males) were recruited. 25(OH)D inadequacy was highly prevalent in the controls (63 %; 22/35) and in the patients (64 %; 42/65) at both baseline and during treatment (33-50 %). Non-supplemented children had the highest prevalence of 25(OH)D inadequacy at every stage with 25(OH)D median ranging from 32·0 (IQR 21·0-46·5) to 45·0 (28·0-64·5) nmol/l. Older age at baseline (R -0·46; P<0·001), overnutrition (BMI≥85th centile) at 3 months (P=0·005; relative risk=3·1) and not being supplemented at 6 months (P=0·04; relative risk=4·3) may have contributed to lower plasma 25(OH)D. Paediatric cancer patients are not at a higher risk of 25(OH)D inadequacy than healthy children at diagnosis; however, prevalence of 25(OH)D inadequacy is still high and non-supplemented children have a higher risk. Appropriate monitoring and therapeutic supplementation should be implemented.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".