MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2970012140 · doi:10.1001/jama.2019.11889

Effect of High-Dose Vitamin D Supplementation on Volumetric Bone Density and Bone Strength

2019· article· en· W2970012140 on OpenAlexaffabout
Lauren A. Burt, Emma O. Billington, Marianne S Rose, Duncan A. Raymond, David A. Hanley, Steven K. Boyd

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVitamin D Research Studies
Canadian institutionsAlberta Health ServicesAlberta Bone and Joint Health InstituteUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineVitamin D and neurologyBone mineralOsteoporosisQuantitative computed tomographyBone densityRandomized controlled trialVitaminTibiaInternal medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Few studies have assessed the effects of daily vitamin D doses at or above the tolerable upper intake level for 12 months or greater, yet 3% of US adults report vitamin D intakes of at least 4000 IU per day. Objective: To assess the dose-dependent effect of vitamin D supplementation on volumetric bone mineral density (BMD) and strength. Design, Setting, and Participants: Three-year, double-blind, randomized clinical trial conducted in a single center in Calgary, Canada, from August 2013 to December 2017, including 311 community-dwelling healthy adults without osteoporosis, aged 55 to 70 years, with baseline levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) of 30 to 125 nmol/L. Interventions: Daily doses of vitamin D3 for 3 years at 400 IU (n = 109), 4000 IU (n = 100), or 10 000 IU (n = 102). Calcium supplementation was provided to participants with dietary intake of less than 1200 mg per day. Main Outcomes and Measures: Co-primary outcomes were total volumetric BMD at radius and tibia, assessed with high resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography, and bone strength (failure load) at radius and tibia estimated by finite element analysis. Results: Of 311 participants who were randomized (53% men; mean [SD] age, 62.2 [4.2] years), 287 (92%) completed the study. Baseline, 3-month, and 3-year levels of 25(OH)D were 76.3, 76.7, and 77.4 nmol/L for the 400-IU group; 81.3, 115.3, and 132.2 for the 4000-IU group; and 78.4, 188.0, and 144.4 for the 10 000-IU group. There were significant group × time interactions for volumetric BMD. At trial end, radial volumetric BMD was lower for the 4000 IU group (-3.9 mg HA/cm3 [95% CI, -6.5 to -1.3]) and 10 000 IU group (-7.5 mg HA/cm3 [95% CI, -10.1 to -5.0]) compared with the 400 IU group with mean percent change in volumetric BMD of -1.2% (400 IU group), -2.4% (4000 IU group), and -3.5% (10 000 IU group). Tibial volumetric BMD differences from the 400 IU group were -1.8 mg HA/cm3 (95% CI, -3.7 to 0.1) in the 4000 IU group and -4.1 mg HA/cm3 in the 10 000 IU group (95% CI, -6.0 to -2.2), with mean percent change values of -0.4% (400 IU), -1.0% (4000 IU), and -1.7% (10 000 IU). There were no significant differences for changes in failure load (radius, P = .06; tibia, P = .12). Conclusions and Relevance: Among healthy adults, treatment with vitamin D for 3 years at a dose of 4000 IU per day or 10 000 IU per day, compared with 400 IU per day, resulted in statistically significant lower radial BMD; tibial BMD was significantly lower only with the 10 000 IU per day dose. There were no significant differences in bone strength at either the radius or tibia. These findings do not support a benefit of high-dose vitamin D supplementation for bone health; further research would be needed to determine whether it is harmful. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01900860.

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)0.002
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: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations327
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMASame topicVitamin D Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207