Predictors of 25-Hydroxyvitamin D Concentration Measured at Multiple Time Points in a Multiethnic Population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The evidence for a relationship between serum vitamin D levels and nonskeletal health outcomes is inconsistent. The validity of single or predicted measurements of 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) concentration is unknown, as levels of this biomarker are highly seasonally variable. We compared models of 25(OH)D measured at baseline, at multiple time points throughout the year, and averaged over the year among 309 persons in Toronto, Ontario, Canada (43°N latitude) during 2009-2013. Information and blood samples were collected every 2 months. Baseline and average 25(OH)D concentrations were correlated (r = 0.88). Major factors associated with 25(OH)D level were similar across models and included race/ethnicity (concentrations in non-European groups were lower than those in Europeans), vitamin D supplement use of ≥1,000 IU/day (18.9 nmol/L (95% confidence interval (CI): 16.1, 21.8) vs. no supplement use in a full data set with all factors), and the presence of the group-specific component/vitamin D binding protein gene (GC/DBP) rs4588 functional polymorphism (AA vs. CC: -16.7 nmol/L (95% CI: -26.2, -7.1); CA vs. CC: -10.7 nmol/L (95% CI: -14.9, -6.5)). Most factors had similar associations in Europeans and non-Europeans. Genetic factors may play a greater role in average 25(OH)D concentrations. Prediction models for 25(OH)D are challenging and population-specific, but use of genetic factors along with a few common population-relevant, quantifiable nongenetic factors with strong associations may be the most feasible approach to vitamin D assessment over time.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".