A20 VITAMIN D SUPPLEMENTATION REDUCES THE OCCURRENCE OF COLORECTAL POLYPS IN HIGH-LATITUDE LOCATIONS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background There is suggestive evidence for the role of vitamin D in the development of colorectal cancer (CRC). Furthermore, previous studies have observed associations with vitamin D supplementation and lower incidence of CRC. Due to high latitudes in Canada, many Canadians are vitamin D deficient throughout winter Aims In this analysis, we aimed to examine the association between either vitamin D supplement use or meeting the reccommended daily intake of vitamin D, and either any colorectal polyp, or a known precursor of CRC: high-risk adenomatous polyps (HRAPs). Methods The study population was drawn from the biorepository at the Forzani & MacPhail Colon Cancer Screening Centre (CCSC) in Calgary. Data were obtained from the Diet History Questionnaire (DHQ) I or II, the Health and Lifestyle Questionnaire (HLQ), and through post-colonoscopy reports completed by the endoscopist. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to examine the association between intake of supplemental vitamin D and presence of HRAPs. Models were adjusted for age, sex, BMI, fiber intake, alcohol consumption, and smoking status. Results Individuals between the age of 50 and 74 years (n= 1,409) were included. When examining the association between any supplemental vitamin D use and HRAPs, a protective effect was observed with an ORadj of 0.57 (95% CI: 0.33–0.96). Similarly, meeting the recommended daily intake (RDI) of vitamin D (600 IU) was protective against HRAPs with an ORadj of 0.78 (95% CI: 0.62–0.99). Conclusions This study suggests that adequate vitamin D supplementation can reduce the risk of HRAPs. These results could be used to inform public health recommendations for vitamin D intake with hopes of reducing the risk of HRAPs. Funding Agencies None
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".