MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2883053146 · doi:10.3389/fendo.2018.00373

Rationale and Plan for Vitamin D Food Fortification: A Review and Guidance Paper

2018· review· en· W2883053146 on OpenAlexaffabout
Stefan Pilz, Winfried März, Kevin D. Cashman, Máiréad Kiely, Susan J. Whiting, Michael F. Holick, William B. Grant, Paweł Płudowski, Mickaël Hiligsmann, Christian Trummer, Verena Theiler‐Schwetz, Elisabeth Lerchbaum, Marlene Pandis, Andreas Tomaschitz, Martin Grübler, Martin Gaksch, Nicolas Verheyen, Bruce W. Hollis, Lars Rejnmark, Spyridon Ν. Karras, Andreas Hahn, Heike A. Bischoff‐Ferrari, Jörg Reichrath, Rolf Jorde, Ibrahim Elmadfa, Reinhold Vieth, Robert Scragg, Mona S. Calvo, Natasja M. van Schoor, Roger Bouillon, Paul Lips, Suvi T. Itkonen, Adrian R. Martineau, Christel Lamberg‐Allardt, Armin Zittermann

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Endocrinology · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVitamin D Research Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFood fortificationFortified FoodFortificationPlan (archaeology)MedicineVitamin D and neurologyVitaminBiotechnologyBusinessFood scienceMicronutrientBiologyInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Vitamin D deficiency can lead to musculoskeletal diseases such as rickets and osteomalacia, but vitamin D supplementation may also prevent extraskeletal diseases such as respiratory tract infections, asthma exacerbations, pregnancy complications and premature deaths. Vitamin D has a unique metabolism as it is mainly obtained through synthesis in the skin under the influence of sunlight (i.e., ultraviolet-B radiation) whereas intake by nutrition traditionally plays a relatively minor role. Dietary guidelines for vitamin D are based on a consensus that serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) concentrations are used to assess vitamin D status, with the recommended target concentrations ranging from ≥25 to ≥50 nmol/L (≥10-≥20 ng/mL), corresponding to a daily vitamin D intake of 10 to 20 μg (400-800 international units). Most populations fail to meet these recommended dietary vitamin D requirements. In Europe, 25(OH)D concentrations <30 nmol/L (12 ng/mL) and <50 nmol/L (20 ng/mL) are present in 13.0 and 40.4% of the general population, respectively. This substantial gap between officially recommended dietary reference intakes for vitamin D and the high prevalence of vitamin D deficiency in the general population requires action from health authorities. Promotion of a healthier lifestyle with more outdoor activities and optimal nutrition are definitely warranted but will not erase vitamin D deficiency and must, in the case of sunlight exposure, be well balanced with regard to potential adverse effects such as skin cancer. Intake of vitamin D supplements is limited by relatively poor adherence (in particular in individuals with low-socioeconomic status) and potential for overdosing. Systematic vitamin D food fortification is, however, an effective approach to improve vitamin D status in the general population, and this has already been introduced by countries such as the US, Canada, India, and Finland. Recent advances in our knowledge on the safety of vitamin D treatment, the dose-response relationship of vitamin D intake and 25(OH)D levels, as well as data on the effectiveness of vitamin D fortification in countries such as Finland provide a solid basis to introduce and modify vitamin D food fortification in order to improve public health with this likewise cost-effective approach.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0050.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.074
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.290 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations356
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in EndocrinologySame topicVitamin D Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207