Despite High Use of Prenatal Supplements Suboptimal Vitamin D Status is Common in Pregnant Vancouver Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Obtaining adequate vitamin D during pregnancy is important for health of mother and child. Low circulating 25 ‐hydroxyvitamin D (25OHD) concentrations, a measure of vitamin D status have been described in pregnant women in several countries. We measured 25OHD in a multi‐ethnic group of pregnant women living in Vancouver (49°N) and explored the determinants of 25OHD. 336 pregnant women (16–47 y) between 20 and 35 weeks gestation provided a blood sample and completed questionnaires. Mean (95% CI) 25OHD was 67 (64, 69) nmol/L. Only 1% of women had a 25OHD concentration indicative of severe deficiency (<25 nmol/L). However, 24% and 65% of women were vitamin D insufficient based on cutoffs of 50 and 75 nmol/L, respectively. In multivariate analysis, mean 25OHD concentrations were 12 nmol/L higher in the Summer than Winter. Women of European (White) ethnicity had a 9–13 nmol/L higher mean 25OHD concentrations than women from other ethnic groups. Over 80% of women took vitamin D containing supplements containing ≥400 IU/d. However, 21% and 61% of these women were vitamin D insufficient based on cutoffs of 50 and 75 nmol/L, respectively. In conclusion, vitamin D insufficiency was common in this group of pregnant women. Season and ethnicity were determinants of 25OHD but the magnitude of their effect was not large. Most women took vitamin D containing supplements but this did not provide much protection against insufficiency.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".