Vitamin D Sufficiency of Canadian Children Did Not Improve Following the 2010 Revision of the Dietary Guidelines That Recommend Higher Intake of Vitamin D: An Analysis of the Canadian Health Measures Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2010, the dietary guidelines for vitamin D for Canadians and Americans aged 1-70 years were revised upward. It is unknown whether the vitamin D status of Canadian children improved after 2010. We compared the prevalence of vitamin D sufficiency (25-hydroxy vitamin D (25(OH)D) concentration of ≥50 nmol/L), 25(OH)D concentration and the frequency of consuming vitamin D-rich foods among children aged 6-18 years-old using data from the nationally representative 2007/2009 and 2012/2013 Canadian Health Measures Surveys. Associations of sociodemographic, anthropometric, seasonal, and regional variables with achieving vitamin D sufficiency, 25(OH)D concentration, and consumption of vitamin D-rich foods were assessed using multiple logistic and linear regression models. 79% and 68% of children in 2007/2009 and 2012/2013 respectively, were vitamin D sufficient. The main dietary source of vitamin D was milk. Between 2007/2009 and 2012/2013, the frequency of milk and fish consumption declined, but egg and red meat consumption was unchanged. Age, income, weight status, season and ethnicity were associated with 25(OH)D concentration and vitamin D sufficiency. Vitamin D status declined after the upward revision of dietary guidelines for vitamin D, consequently, dietary intake was inadequate to meet sufficiency. Public health initiatives to promote vitamin D-rich foods and supplementation for Canadian children are needed.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".