Vitamin D intakes among women living with and without <scp>HIV</scp> in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patterns of vitamin D intake are relatively unexplored among women living with HIV, despite its importance for women's health. We compared vitamin D dietary and supplement intakes in women with HIV and population-based national controls and investigated barriers to intake. METHODS: In this case-control study, women with HIV in the Children and Women: AntiRetrovirals and Markers of Aging (CARMA) cohort were matched with Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study (CaMos) controls. Participants were queried for vitamin D in dairy consumption, supplementation/dosage, and sociodemographic variables. We assessed barriers to supplementation and factors associated with dietary intake by regression modelling. RESULTS: Ninety-five women living with HIV were age-matched to 284 controls. Women with HIV had lower income and bone mineral density and were more likely to smoke, take multiple medications and be non-white. Vitamin D dietary intake was lower in women living with HIV versus controls [0.76 vs. 1.79 μg/day; adjusted odds ratio (aOR) for greater than or equal to median intake 0.29 (0.12-0.61), p = 0.002], but any supplementation was higher [62.2% vs. 44.7%; aOR = 3.44 (95% CI: 1.16-11.00), p = 0.03]. Total vitamin D intake was similar between groups. Smoking was associated with no supplementation; non-white ethnicity and low income were related to lower dietary intake. CONCLUSIONS: Women living with HIV showed lower dietary vitamin D intake but higher supplementation rates, suggesting that care providers are promoting supplementation. Women living with HIV who smoke, have low incomes and are non-white may particularly benefit from targeted efforts to improve vitamin D intake.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".