Rapid rescue of vitamin D levels between 1 and 3 mo of age in neonates with low vitamin D levels using a daily supplementation dosage of 1200 IU supports higher bone mineral accretion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Research focused on bone mineral accretion in otherwise healthy neonates with low vitamin D status (25‐hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] <50 nmol/L) in response to early and rapid recovery of vitamin D status is very scarce. Objective To study bone mineral content (BMC) and mineral accretion in response to rapid recovery of low vitamin D status in otherwise healthy neonates. Methods A secondary analysis of data from a published dose‐response study (NCT0038914) was performed. Infants with 1 mo 25(OH)D < 50 nmol/L receiving 400, 800 or 1200 IU/d of vitamin D up to 12 mo formed a low vitamin D (LOW‐D) group (n=19) while infants with 1 mo 25(OH)D > 50 nmol/L and receiving at least 400 IU of vitamin D up to 12 mo formed the reference group. Anthropometry, lumbar vertebrae (1–4) BMC (DXA), and plasma 25(OH)D (LC‐MS/MS) were measured at 1 and 3 mo of age. Differences between groups were tested using ANOVA and post‐hoc t‐tests. Results Vitamin D levels increased in all groups by 2 and 3 mo of age. Significantly higher 25(OH)D concentration at 3 mo of age were observed in the LOW‐D group receiving the 1200 IU /d of vitamin D (25(OH)D > 75 nmol/L) in comparison with the LOW‐D groups receiving the 400 and 800 IU doses (25(OH)D<75 nmol/L), p<.05. Change (%) in lumbar vertebrae 1–4 BMC from 1 to 3 mo of age in infants from the reference groups was significantly higher among infants with plasma 25(OH)D exceeding 100 nmol/L at 3 mo of age. A similar but non‐significant pattern was detected among the smaller LOW‐D group. Conclusion Vitamin D levels in infancy impact skeletal growth. Further investigation of the effect of a high recovery dosage of vitamin D (1000–1200 IU/d) among neonates with low vitamin D status on bone mineral accretion is deemed necessary. Support or Funding Information The data for the secondary analysis was derived from a study jointly funded by the Canadian Institutes for Health Research, Nutricia Research Foundation and in‐kind product by Europharm Inc, Montreal. Canada Foundation for Innovation funding provided for infrastructure.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".