An Analysis of Factors Associated with 25-Hydroxyvitamin D Levels in White and Non-White Canadians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vitamin D status was assessed in 19-79 year old whites (8351 participants of European ancestry) and non-whites (1840 participants encompassing all other ancestries) from cycles 1 to 3 (years 2007-2013) of the Canadian Health Measures Survey. Status was assessed using the U.S. Institute of Medicine (IOM) 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] cut point values of 30 and 40 nmol/L. Overall, median 25(OH)D concentrations were significantly higher in whites [58.9 (28.6, 100.1) nmol/L; 5th and 95th percentile] compared with non-whites [43.5 (19.0, 83.2); P < 0.001]. Values were higher in females [58.5 (27.5, 101.3) nmol/L] when compared with males [53.5 (24.2, 92.7) nmol/L] and increased with age. Non-whites were more likely to have 25(OH)D values below IOM established cut points for optimum bone health with 20.1 (16.0, 24.2) and 42.2% (36.8, 47.7) of non-whites having serum 25(OH)D concentrations <30 and <40 nmol/L, respectively. The corresponding values for whites were 5.9 (4.6, 7.2) and 16.1% (14.0, 18.3). Values were lower during the first quarter when compared with the third quarter. Supplement intake was an important factor in determining 25(OH)D levels, but it did not alone account for the difference in status. Equivalent increases in 25(OH)D levels were observed in whites and non-whites during the summer months, suggesting there was no functional difference in sun exposure response. It is apparent that a complex interaction of factors affect 25(OH)D values in free-living Canadians.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".