Disparities in the timing and measurement methods to assess vitamin D status during pregnancy: A Narrative Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies that examined associations between low circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) and adverse pregnancy outcomes used various designs, assay methods and time points for measurement of 25(OH)D concentrations, which creates some confusion in the current literature. We aimed to investigate the variability in the timing and measurement methods used to evaluate vitamin D status during pregnancy. Analysis of 198 studies published between 1976 and 2017 showed an important variability in the choice of 1) threshold values for 25(OH)D insufficiency or deficiency, 2) 25(OH)D measurement methods, and 3) trimester in which 25(OH)D concentrations were measured. Blood samples were taken once during pregnancy in a large majority of studies, which may not be representative of vitamin D status throughout pregnancy. Most studies reported adjustment for confounding factors including season of blood sampling, but very few studies used the 25(OH)D gold standard assay, the LC-MS/MS. Prospective studies assessing maternal 25(OH)D concentrations 1) by standardized and validated methods, 2) at various time points during pregnancy, and 3) after considering potential confounding factors, 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 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 | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".