Serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D level in relation to weight change and the risk of weight gain in adults of normal weight at baseline: the Norwegian HUNT cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We sought to investigate the relationship of serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) level with weight change and the risk of weight gain in an adult population who had normal weight at baseline and were followed up for 11 years. DESIGN: A population-based prospective cohort study. SETTING: Nord-Trøndelag, Norway. PARTICIPANTS: at baseline. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Relative weight change (%) was calculated as ((HUNT3 weight-HUNT2 weight)/HUNT2 weight×100). Relative annual weight change (%) was calculated as (relative weight change/follow-up years×100). Clinical weight gain was defined as relative weight change ≥5% over the 11 years, while annual weight gain was defined as relative annual weight change >1.25%. METHODS: Multiple regression models were used to estimate adjusted coefficients for the relative annual weight change and risk ratios (RRs) for the risk of clinical weight gain and of annual weight gain. RESULTS: Each 25 nmol/L increase in season-standardised serum 25(OH)D level at baseline was associated with a reduction of 0.05% (95% CI -0.11 to 0.01) for relative annual weight change, a 10% (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.97) reduced risk of clinical weight gain, and a 19% (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.00) reduced risk of annual weight gain. A statistically significant trend was evident for the risk of clinical weight gain when 25(OH)D levels were treated as a categorical variable (p=0.006). CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggested an inverse association of serum 25(OH)D level with the risk of clinical weight gain in adults who had normal weight at baseline over 11 years' follow-up.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".