Vitamin D supplement use by adult Canadians: sociodemographic correlates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 2011 Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDAs) for vitamin D intake in the absence of sunlight exposure are 15 μg/d (1–70 y) and 20 μg/d (70+ y). In Canada, these intakes are not feasible to obtain from food alone, and in winter months cutaneous vitamin D synthesis is very limited, suggesting the need for supplementation. To assess the prevalence and correlates of vitamin D supplement use subsequent to release of the 2011 RDAs, an on‐line survey was completed in September 2011 by a nationally‐representative sample of 2554 English‐ or French‐speaking adults aged ≥19 y. The survey assessed use of vitamin D supplements, health perceptions, and sociodemographic variables. Characteristics associated with supplement use in univariate analysis were used to determine multivariable‐adjusted odds ratios for supplement use. Overall, 47.9% reported use of a supplement with vitamin D; users’ median (interquartile range) supplemental intake was 10 (5, 25) μg/d. Significant adjusted odds ratios (95% CI >; 1.0) were detected for age group (19–30, 31–50, 51–70, 71+ y), female sex, speaking English (vs. French), having an osteoporosis diagnosis, perceived lactose intolerance, and university education. Adjusted odds ratio for marital status, ethnicity and income level were not significant. Certain population subgroups may benefit from targeted information about vitamin D supplementation. Supported by the UBC Vitamin Research Fund and the Canadian Agri‐Science Cluster Initiative.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".