25-OHD response to vitamin D supplementation in children: effect of dose but not GC haplotype
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: GC/DBP effects on response to vitamin D supplementation have not been well-studied. Thus we assessed free and total 25-OHD after vitamin D treatment across the six common GC haplotypes. DESIGN: This double-blind, randomized study compared two vitamin D3 doses in healthy, urban-dwelling 6-month to 10-year-old children at-risk for vitamin D deficiency. Randomization was stratified by GC haplotype. METHODS: Children were randomized to receive 2800 or 7000 International Units of vitamin D3 weekly. 25-OHD and 1,25(OH)2D were sampled at baseline and after 1-6 months of supplementation. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: One hundred ninety-two of 225 enrolled subjects completed the study. After one month, total 25-OHD increased with both doses and were higher with 7000 IU/week (85.5 ± 22.8 nmol/L) compared to 2800 IU/week (76.8 ± 18.0 nmol/L), despite equivalent baseline levels. No further significant increase occurred at 6 months (89.8 ± 35.5 and 74.3 ± 18.3 nmol/L, respectively). Free 25-OHD similarly changed. 25-OHD differed among GC groups at baseline. Although no significant effects of individual GC haplotypes on incremental changes were evident, a trend toward an effect of combined 'at risk' GC alleles on response was evident (P = 0.06). Total 1,25(OH)2D showed modest increases, moreso with the larger dose. In urban-dwelling children at-risk for vitamin D deficiency, 1 month of vitamin D3 2800 IU/week increased 25-OHD across all GC haplotype groups, and somewhat enhanced with 7000 IU/week with no further significant increases after 6 months of supplementation. Free 25-OHD measures offer no monitoring advantage over total 25-OHD.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".