MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3216927008 · doi:10.1002/jbm4.10585

Trends in Vitamin <scp>D</scp> Status Around the World

2021· article· en· W3216927008 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Paul Lips, Renate T. de Jongh, Natasja M. van Schoor

Bibliographic record

VenueJBMR Plus · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVitamin D Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFortificationFood fortificationVitamin D and neurologySocioeconomic statusEnvironmental healthPopulationVitaminBody mass indexMedicineGeographyFood scienceBiologyEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Vitamin D status varies across all continents and countries. Vitamin D status usually is adequate in Latin America and Australia, but in contrast it is very low in the Middle East and some countries in Asia. Trends in vitamin D status, whether it improves or declines over the years, carry important messages. Trends usually are small, but can be predictors and indicators of general health. Vitamin D status has improved in the older population in the United States, and improvement relates to dairy use and vitamin D supplements. To the contrary, vitamin D status has declined in the Inuit population of Canada due to a change from a traditional fish diet to a Western diet. A large improvement was seen in Finland after mandatory fortification of dairy products was introduced. Determinants of decline are less sun exposure, increased use of sunscreen, increase of body mass index (BMI), less physical activity, and poor socioeconomic status. Determinants of increase are food fortification with vitamin D and vitamin D supplements. Food fortification can lead to a population‐wide increase in vitamin D status as shown by the Finnish example. © 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.085

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.305 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations87
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJBMR PlusSame topicVitamin D Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207