Diagnostic Aspects of Vitamin D: Clinical Utility of Vitamin D Metabolite Profiling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The assay of vitamin D that began in the 1970s with the quantification of one or two metabolites, 25‐OH‐D or 1,25‐(OH) 2 D, continues to evolve with the emergence of liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (LC‐MS/MS) as the technique of choice. This highly accurate, specific, and sensitive technique has been adopted by many fields of endocrinology for the measurement of multiple other components of the metabolome, and its advantage is that it not only makes it feasible to assay 25‐OH‐D or 1,25‐(OH) 2 D but also other circulating vitamin D metabolites in the vitamin D metabolome. In the process, this broadens the spectrum of vitamin D metabolites, which the clinician can use to evaluate the many complex genetic and acquired diseases of calcium and phosphate homeostasis involving vitamin D. Several examples are provided in this review that additional metabolites (eg, 24,25‐(OH) 2 D 3 , 25‐OH‐D 3 ‐26,23‐lactone, and 1,24,25‐(OH) 3 D 3 ) or their ratios with the main forms offer valuable additional diagnostic information. This approach illustrates that biomarkers of disease can also include metabolites devoid of biological activity. Herein, a case is presented that the decision to switch to a LC‐MS/MS technology permits the measurement of a larger number of vitamin D metabolites simultaneously and does not need to lead to a dramatic increase in cost or complexity because the technique uses a highly versatile tandem mass spectrometer with plenty of reserve analytical capacity. Physicians are encouraged to consider adding this rapidly evolving technique aimed at evaluating the wider vitamin D metabolome toward streamlining their approach to calcium‐ and phosphate‐related disease states. © 2021 The Authors. JBMR Plus published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".