Effect of Vitamin D Supplementation on 25(OH)D Status in Elite Athletes With Spinal Cord Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent studies suggest that a substantial proportion of athletes with spinal cord injury have insufficient 25(OH) vitamin D (25(OH)D) status, which may be associated with decreased muscle strength. This study consisted of two parts: (a) to examine the effects of a 12- to 16-week vitamin D3 supplementation protocol on 25(OH)D concentration and (b) to determine whether subsequent 25(OH)D status impacts muscle performance in elite athletes with spinal cord injury. Thirty-four members (age: 33 ± 15 years, weight: 69.6 ± 28.2 kg, and height: 170.2 ± 25.4 cm) of the U.S. and Canadian Paralympic program participated in the study. 25(OH)D concentrations and performance measures (handgrip strength and 20-m wheelchair sprint) were assessed pre- and postsupplementation. Participants were assigned a vitamin D3 supplementation protocol based on initial 25(OH)D concentrations. Participants with deficient 25(OH)D status (<50 nmol/L) received 50,000 IU/week for 8 weeks, and participants with insufficient status (50–75 nmol/L) received 35,000 IU/week for 4 weeks, after which both received a maintenance dose of 15,000 IU/week. Participants with sufficient status (>75 nmol/L) received the maintenance dose of 15,000 IU/week. 25(OH)D concentrations increased significantly (p < .001; 66.3 ± 24.3 nmol/L and 111.3 ± 30.8 nmol/L pre- and postsupplementation, respectively). About 26% of athletes had sufficient 25(OH)D concentrations presupplementation, and 91% had sufficient concentrations postsupplementation. About 62% of participants improved handgrip strength postsupplementation with no change in 20-m wheelchair sprint performance. The supplementation protocol was effective for achieving sufficient vitamin D concentrations in elite athletes with spinal cord injury.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".