Vitamin D dose‐response study in breast fed infants from Montréal, Canada: 400 IU/day is sufficient to meet the plasma 25‐hydroxy vitamin D threshold of 50 nmol/L but not 75 nmol/L by 12 months of age
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Adequate Intake of 400 IU/d of vitamin D was established by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to support 25‐hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) concentrations >50 nmol/L whereas, the Canadian Paediatric Society suggests 75–225 nmol/L. We aimed to identify a dosage of vitamin D which would support 25(OH)D ≥75 nmol/L in 97.5% of participants across infancy. Healthy, term infants (n=132) were randomized to oral supplements of 400, 800, 1200 or 1600 IU vitamin D 3 daily from 1 to 12 mo of age and plasma 25(OH)D was measured (LC‐MS/MS; Warnex Inc.) (NCT00381914). The 1600 IU/d group was discontinued due to 25(OH)D concentrations >225 nmol/L. At each time point, logistic regression was used to test the effect of dose vs. 400 IU/d by ITT. Compared to the 400 IU group, dose significantly predicted (*) achieving ≥75 nmol/L, with odds ratios (CI) of 15(3–73) at 2 mo, 13(2–76) at 3 mo, 5(1–17) at 12 mo for 1200 IU/d and 16(2–128) for 1600 IU/d. By 3 mo, the 400 IU/dosage meet the IOM recommendation. If 75 nmol/L is the threshold, then dosages >400 IU/d may be necessary. Functional outcomes may be improved with 25(OH)D levels ≥75 nmol/L. Percent of infants ≥ 50 and 75 nmol/L by age and group compared to 400 IU/d at same time Age (mo) 400 IU/d (n=39) 800 IU/d (n=39) 1200 IU/d (n=38) 1600 IU/d (n=16) ≥50 ≥75 ≥50 ≥75 ≥50 ≥75 ≥50 ≥75 1 66 17 61 21 76 34 82 27 2 92 42 90 57 93 87 92 77 3 97 55 97 81 96 93 100 100 6 100 71 93 73 100 87 100 100 9 97 66 96 68 100 69 100 86 12 97 38 96 63 100 68 100 83 p<0.05. Grant Funding Source : Canadian Institutes of Health Research; Nutricia Research Foundation
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".