MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Vitamin D is inversely related to parathyroid hormone in newborn Canadian infants

2008· article· en· W29251310 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kathryn Grace Trussler, Hope A. Weiler

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal Respiratory Health Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParathyroid hormoneVitamin D and neurologyCord bloodMedicineInternal medicineEndocrinologyAnalysis of varianceCalcium

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Concentrations of 25(OH)D in the order of 75 nmol/L associated with a plateau in PTH are widely accepted as a target for defining optimal vitamin D status in adults and adolescents. The primary objective of this study was to examine the relationship between serum 25(OH)D and PTH from infant cord blood samples. Cord blood samples from 64 infants were measured for 25(OH)D (Octeia ELISA, Immunodiagnostic systems Ltd, UK) and PTH (Human Bioactive PTH 1–84 ELISA, Immutopics, USA). PTH and 25OHD were inversely correlated using Pearson analysis (r=−0.31 p=0.007, n=62) (Figure one). Infants with 25(OH)D ≤30 nmol/L had PTH values that were significantly higher than those with 25(OH)D 30–50 nmol/L (p<0.05) and ≥50 nmol/L (p<0.01) using ANOVA and Tukey's tests. The data suggests a plateau in PTH at [25(OH)D] 75 nmol/L, but requires further statistical modeling using a larger sample of concentrations above 75 nmol/L. Finding an optimal target for vitamin D status will not only aid in diagnostics but will assist current research on vitamin D supplementation levels for breastfed infants. Research was funded by Canadian Institute of Health Research

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB Journal→Same topicNeonatal Respiratory Health Research→French-language works237,207→