Proposal and Validation of a Quick Question to Rate the Influence of Diet in Geriatric Epidemiological Studies on Vitamin D
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Diet is a major exogenous source of vitamin D. The objective of this analysis was to determine whether the yes/no answer to a simple question exploring diet (Do you eat fatty fish at least once a week and/or eggs several times per week?) could be associated with serum 25-hydroxy-vitamin D status among 261 older in- and outpatients (mean ± standard deviation, 83.5 ± 8.1 years). Methods: Two groups were distinguished based on the binary yes/no answer. Hypovitaminosis D was defined as serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D ≤ 75 nmol/L. Results: More participants with hypovitaminosis D answered No to the question on diet compared to their counterparts (p = 0.002). Answering No was associated with hypovitaminosis D (OR = 3.22, p = 0.001) after adjustment for potential confounders, with a positive predictive value = 79 %. Conclusion: A simple dietary question may identify older patients with hypovitaminosis D who should receive vitamin D supplements.
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 | 0.212 | 0.236 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".