Both Mother and Infant Require a Vitamin D Supplement to Ensure That Infants’ Vitamin D Status Meets Current Guidelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined the association between maternal vitamin D intake during breastfeeding with their infants' vitamin D status in infants who did or did not receive vitamin D supplements to determine whether infant supplementation was sufficient. Using plasma from a subset of breastfed infants in the APrON (Alberta Pregnant Outcomes and Nutrition) cohort, vitamin D status was measured by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Maternal and infants' dietary data were obtained from APrON's dietary questionnaires. The median maternal vitamin D intake was 665 International Units (IU)/day, while 25% reported intakes below the recommended 400 IU/day. Of the 224 infants in the cohort, 72% were exclusively breastfed, and 90% were receiving vitamin D supplements. Infants' median 25(OH)D was 96.0 nmol/L (interquartile ranges (IQR) 77.6-116.2), and 25% had 25(OH)D < 75 nmol/L. An adjusted linear regression model showed that, with a 100 IU increase in maternal vitamin D intake, infants' 25(OH)D increased by 0.9 nmol/L controlling for race, season, mid-pregnancy maternal 25(OH)D, birthweight, and whether the infant received daily vitamin D supplement (β = 0.008, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.002, 0.13). These results suggest that, to ensure infant optimal vitamin D status, not only do infants require a supplement, but women also need to meet current recommended vitamin D intake during breastfeeding.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".