Vitamin D deficiency and sufficiency among Canadian children residing at high latitude following the revision of the RDA of vitamin D intake in 2010
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently, countries at high latitudes have updated their vitamin D recommendations to ensure adequate intake for the musculoskeletal health of their respective populations. In 2010, the dietary guidelines for vitamin D for Canadians and Americans aged 1–70 years increased from 5 μg/d to 15 μg/d, whereas in 2016 for citizens of the UK aged ≥4 years 10 μg/d is recommended. The vitamin D status of Canadian children following the revised dietary guidelines is unknown. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the prevalence and determinants of vitamin D deficiency and sufficiency among Canadian children. For this study, we assumed serum 25-hydroxy vitamin D (25(OH)D) concentrations <30 nmol/l as ‘deficient’ and ≥50 nmol/l as ‘sufficient’. Data from children aged 3–18 years (n 2270) who participated in the 2012/2013 Canadian Health Measures Survey were analysed. Of all children, 5·6% were vitamin D deficient and 71% were vitamin D sufficient. Children who consumed vitamin D-fortified milk daily (77 %) were more likely to be sufficient than those who consumed it less frequently (OR 2·4; 95% CI 1·7, 3·3). The 9% of children who reported taking vitamin D-containing supplements in the previous month had higher 25(OH)D concentrations (β 5·9 nmol/l; 95% CI 1·3, 12·1 nmol/l) relative to those who did not. Children who were older, obese, of non-white ethnicity and from low-income households were less likely to be vitamin D sufficient. To improve vitamin D status, consumption of vitamin D-rich foods should be promoted, and fortification of more food items or formal recommendations for vitamin D supplementation should be considered.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".