Sunscreen photoprotection and vitamin D status
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Global concern about vitamin D deficiency has fuelled debates on photoprotection and the importance of solar exposure to meet vitamin D requirements. OBJECTIVES: To review the published evidence to reach a consensus on the influence of photoprotection by sunscreens on vitamin D status, considering other relevant factors. METHODS: An international panel of 13 experts in endocrinology, dermatology, photobiology, epidemiology and biological anthropology reviewed the literature prior to a 1-day meeting in June 2017, during which the evidence was discussed. Methods of assessment and determining factors of vitamin D status, and public health perspectives were examined and consequences of sun exposure and the effects of photoprotection were assessed. RESULTS: 25(OH)D is a target for all individuals. Broad-spectrum sunscreens that prevent erythema are unlikely to compromise vitamin D status in healthy populations. Vitamin D screening should be restricted to those at risk of hypovitaminosis, such as patients with photosensitivity disorders, who require rigorous photoprotection. Screening and supplementation are advised for this group. CONCLUSIONS: Sunscreen use for daily and recreational photoprotection does not compromise vitamin D synthesis, even when applied under optimal conditions. What's already known about this topic? Knowledge of the relationship between solar exposure behaviour, sunscreen use and vitamin D is important for public health but there is confusion about optimal vitamin D status and the safest way to achieve this. Practical recommendations on the potential impact of daily and/or recreational sunscreens on vitamin D status are lacking for healthy people. What does this study add? Judicious use of daily broad-spectrum sunscreens with high ultraviolet (UV) A protection will not compromise vitamin D status in healthy people. However, photoprotection strategies for patients with photosensitivity disorders that include high sun-protection factor sunscreens with high UVA protection, along with protective clothing and shade-seeking behaviour are likely to compromise vitamin D status. Screening for vitamin D status and supplementation are recommended in patients with photosensitivity disorders.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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 it