MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Vitamin D dose response study in Canadian infants: 25‐hydroxy‐vitamin D status during a 20 week intervention

2010· article· en· W2979046984 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Sina Gallo, Catherine A. Vanstone, Kathryn Comeau, Sherry Agellon, Celia Rodd, Atul Sharma, Hope A. Weiler

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBreastfeeding Practices and Influences
Canadian institutionsMontreal Children's HospitalMcGill University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineDoseVitamin D and neurologyRegimenVitaminRandomized controlled trialAnimal sciencePediatricsInternal medicineGastroenterologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS) recommends breastfed infants receive vitamin D supplementation (400 to 800 IU/d) in support of optimal plasma 25‐hydroxy vitamin D (25(OH)D), defined as 75 nM. The objective of this study was to establish a dosage of vitamin D that would support optimal status in 97% of young infants. Healthy term born infants from Montreal (32 girls, 46 boys) were randomized to 400, 800 or 1200 IU vitamin D 3 daily from age 4 wk and plasma 25(OH)D (RIA, Diasorin Inc.) measured at baseline, 4, 8 and 20 wk ( NCT00381914 ; clinicaltrials.gov). Blinded treatments were re‐coded. Repeated measures ANOVA (by ITT) accounting for within‐subject serial correlations demonstrated season of birth, weight, time, treatment and treatment‐time interaction as significant (p<0.01) predictors of 25(OH)D. shows estimated means by time and treatment. Mean 25(OH)D concentrations were higher over time (p<0.01) in dose regimen A vs. other treatments. Using 25(OH)D categories, overall 32% were above 75 nM after the 20 wk intervention. These results suggest that daily dosages of vitamin D from 400 to 1200 IU support a mean 25(OH)D concentration above that associated with deficiency, but the majority do not reach optimal status by 20 wk of supplementation. Estimated mean 25(OH)D ± SE (nM) [% reaching 75 nM]. Time points Treatments A (n=25) B (n=25) C (n=28) Baseline 47.8 ± 3.7 [0.0] 42.8 ± 3.7 [0.0] 41.7 ± 3.8 [4.0] 4 wk 63.4 ± 2.8 [28.6] 44.3 ± 2.8 [0.0] 40.8 ± 2.8 [0.0] 8 wk 57.6 ± 2.4 [5.3] 47.1 ± 2.3 [0.0] 51.7 ± 2.2 [8.7] 20 wk 84.0 ± 5.3 [38.9] 76.7 ± 5.3 [23.5] 77.0 ± 4.6 [33.3] p<0.05 vs treatment‐specific baseline, p<0.05 vs treatment A at same time. Grant Funding Source : Canadian Institutes 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.085
Threshold uncertainty score0.171

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.297
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 designNon-randomized 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

Citations3
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB JournalSame topicBreastfeeding Practices and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207