An Appraisal to Address Health Consequences of Vitamin D Deficiency With Food Fortification and Supplements: Time to Act!
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A symposium entitled "Vitamin D in Prevention and Therapy" was held on May 4-5, 2022, in Homburg, Germany to discuss important new advances in the field, including identification of new vitamin D signaling pathways, of new biologic effects of vitamin D-compounds (e.g., on the microbiome), and convincing proof of the relevance of vitamin D deficiency for the risk and outcome of many chronic diseases, including cancer, cardio-vascular, auto-immune, metabolic, and infectious diseases. Concerning the COVID-19-pandemic, an inverse association between 25(OH)D serum concentrations and SARS-CoV-2-infections, morbidity, and mortality was shown. In relation to cancer, several meta-analyses recently demonstrated an association of vitamin D-supplementation with significantly decreased mortality rates, which presumably would reduce health care costs. Considering the impressive body of evidence and the high safety of oral supplementation and food fortification with vitamin D, it was concluded that there is now an urgent need to act. In many countries worldwide, health care authorities need to increase efforts to address vitamin D deficiency, e.g., via food fortification and/or supplementation with vitamin D, and/or promoting moderate UV-exposure. It was estimated that in many countries, vitamin D intakes of the order of appr. 1,000 IE (25 μg)/day would be needed to bring and/or keep the vast majority of people over a serum 25(OH)D threshold of 20 ng/ml (50 nmol/l), which would be difficult to obtain alone from food fortification. New developments in personalized medicine may represent helpful tools to identify populations at risk for vitamin D deficiency and their responsiveness to vitamin D treatment.
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 | 0.012 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.005 |
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".