MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4214484019 · doi:10.1002/jbm4.10615

Response to High‐Dose Vitamin D Supplementation Is Specific to Imaging Modality and Skeletal Site

2022· article· en· W4214484019 on OpenAlexafffund
Lauren A. Burt, Leigh Gabel, Emma O. Billington, David A. Hanley, Steven K. Boyd

Bibliographic record

VenueJBMR Plus · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and osteoporosis research
Canadian institutionsAlberta Bone and Joint Health InstituteUniversity of Calgary
FundersUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsQuantitative computed tomographyBone mineralMedicineNuclear medicineTibiaBone densityVitamin D and neurologyDual energyVitaminUrologyvitamin D deficiencyOsteoporosisInternal medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT High‐dose vitamin D supplementation (4000 or 10,000 IU/d) in vitamin D‐sufficient individuals results in a dose‐dependent decrease in radius and tibia total bone mineral density (Tt.BMD) compared with 400 IU/d. This exploratory analysis examined whether the response to high‐dose vitamin D supplementation depends on imaging modality and skeletal site. Participants were aged 55 to 70 years, not osteoporotic, with serum 25(OH)D 30 to 125 nM. Participants’ radius and tibia were scanned on high‐resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography (HR‐pQCT) to measure Tt.BMD, trabecular bone volume fraction (Tb.BV/TV), trabecular separation (Tb.Sp), cortical thickness (Ct.Th), and finite element analysis (FEA) estimated failure load. Three‐dimensional image registration was used. Dual‐energy X‐ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans of the hip, spine, and radius measured areal BMD (aBMD) and trabecular bone score (TBS). Constrained linear mixed‐effects models determined treatment group‐by‐time and treatment group‐by‐time‐by‐sex interactions. The treatment group‐by‐time interaction previously observed for radial Tt.BMD was observed at both ultradistal (UD, p < 0.001) and 33% ( p < 0.001) aBMD sites. However, the treatment group‐by‐time‐by‐sex interaction observed for radial Tt.BMD was not observed with aBMD at either the UD or 33% site, and the 4000 and 400 groups did not differ. Registered radial FEA results mirrored Tt.BMD. An increase in Tb.Sp and decrease in Ct.Th underpinned dose‐dependent changes in radial BMD and strength. We observed no effects in DXA‐based aBMD at the hip or spine or TBS. At the tibia, we observed a time‐by‐treatment group effect for Tb.BV/TV. Given that DXA measures at the radius did not detect sex differences or differences between the 4000 and 400 groups, HR‐pQCT at the radius may be more sensitive for examining bone changes after vitamin D supplementation. Although DXA did not reveal treatment effects at the hip or spine, whether that is a true skeletal site difference or a lack of modality sensitivity remains unclear. © 2022 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.326 · 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

Citations8
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJBMR PlusSame topicBone health and osteoporosis researchFrench-language works237,207