Vitamin D supplementation and gross motor development: A 3-year follow-up of a randomized trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Vitamin D status during pregnancy, early childhood and season-at-birth are implicated in gross motor development (GMD). AIM: To test whether vitamin D intake in infancy and season-at-birth affect GMD in early childhood. STUDY DESIGN: 3-year follow up study of a single-center trial. SUBJECTS: Healthy infants (n = 116) were allocated to 400 (standard-of-care), 800 or 1200 IU/day of vitamin D3 supplementation from 1 to 12 months; n = 70 returned for follow-up at 3-years. OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome was GMD using the Peabody Developmental Motor Scales-2 which includes gross motor quotient (GMQ) and stationary, locomotion and object manipulation subtests. RESULTS: GMQ scores were normal (≥85) in 94 %. An interaction between dosage group and season-at-birth (p = 0.01) was observed for GMQ and stationary standardized score; among winter/spring born children, the 1200 IU/d scored higher vs. 400 and 800 IU/d groups. Object manipulation standardized score was higher (p = 0.04) in children in the 1200 vs. 400 IU/d group, without interaction with season-at-birth. CONCLUSIONS: GMD in young children who received 400 IU/d of supplemental vitamin D in infancy is not influenced by season-at-birth. This dose of vitamin D of 400 IU/d as recommended in North America adequately supports GMD. The modest enhancement in GMD with 1200 IU/d in winter/spring born children requires further study.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".