MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Lean Mass Accretion Increases During Summer and Positively Associates With Vitamin D Status in Healthy Children 2–8 y

2017· article· en· W4389022746 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Neil R. Brett, Catherine A. Vanstone, Hope A. Weiler

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVitamin D Research Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersDairy Farmers of Canada
KeywordsMedicineLean body massVitamin D and neurologyAnthropometryPopulationInternal medicineAnimal scienceEnvironmental healthBody weight

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Population health guidelines for vitamin D intakes and status were designed to support bone health during periods of minimal ultraviolet beta radiation (UVB) exposure. It is less understood how summer UVB exposure influences vitamin D status and lean mass accretion. Thus, the objective of this study was to explore vitamin D status in relation to lean mass outcomes over 12 mo in children 2–8 y. This was a secondary analysis of data from 2 clinical trials (clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02097160, NCT02387892) in Montreal. Children 2–8 y consumed their normal vitamin D intake for 6 mo (Apr–Oct 2014, n=39) and a subgroup (n=21) continuing their normal intake until 12 mo (Apr 2015) with winter and spring study visits in Jan and Apr. At all 4 time-points, serum vitamin D status (total serum 25(OH)D: Liaison, Diasorin and LC-MS/MS) was measured followed by standardized anthropometry, skin colour (forehead, forearm and lower leg; spectrophotometer: CM-700d/600d, Konica Minolta), demographics plus activity and dietary questionnaires. Whole body lean mass and fat mass were measured at baseline, 6 and 12 mo using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (Hologic Discovery, APEX software version 13.3) and at 12 mo, muscle area and density at the 66% non-dominant lower leg were measured using peripheral quantitative computed tomography (XCT-2000; Stratec). Spearman correlations, linear regression and a mixed model ANOVA were used. In Apr 2014, children were 5.1 ± 1.9 y (range 1.9–8.2 y), 54% (21/39) male, with BMI Z-score of 0.72 ± 0.60. Only 1 child at 1 time-point reached the vitamin D EAR of 400 IU/d and vitamin D intake (222 ± 89 IU/d) did not significantly change across the study. Serum 25(OH)D increased (p=0.01) from 0–6 mo (Apr: 62.0 ± 14.1 nmol/L, Oct: 73.5 ± 13.4 nmol/L). Both vitamin D intake and summer change of skin colour (r=−0.08, p=0.61), did not correlate with 25(OH)D change even though there was significant tanning of skin over summer (individual typological angle 0–6 mo change: −12.0 ± 5.5°). In a linear regression model that included age, sex and height velocity, the summer increase in 25(OH)D was 3.3 nmol/L less for every 10 nmol/L increment in baseline 25(OH)D (r2=0.60, p=0.01). In the subgroup, 25(OH)D (Figure 1A) decreased (p=0.01) from 6–12 mo (Oct–Apr). The winter 25(OH)D change was not related to vitamin D intake (r=−0.10, p=0.32). The summer % change in lean mass positively correlated with the Apr 25(OH)D (r= 0.37, p=0.02) (Figure 1B). Also, the % change in lean mass was greater in summer than winter (p=0.04) (Figure 1C). The 12 mo % change in lean mass was higher by 1.5% for every 10 nmol/L increment in Oct 25(OH)D (r2=0.66). At 12 mo, age had the greatest contribution to explaining 66% lower leg muscle area and density. For every 5% increment in 12 mo % change in lean mass, muscle area and muscle density were higher by 300 mm2 (r2 = 0.72) and 7 mg/cm3 (r2 = 0.70) respectively. There was no relationship between ethnicity and 25(OH)D or lean mass. Our results suggest that 25(OH)D may be an important factor for lean mass accrual in young children. Lean mass outcomes may be important to consider when deriving future vitamin D recommendations for children. Support or Funding Information Funding from Dairy Farmers of Canada, The Canada Foundation for Innovation and Canada Research Chairs 25(OH)D of the subgroup of children at all 4 time-points (Panel A). Spearman correlations between summer % Δ in lean mass and baseline 25(OH)D (Panel B). Lean mass % Δ (Panel C) during summer and winter in the subgroup. a,b Different superscripts depict significant differences (p< 0.05) using a mixed model ANOVA. Panel A, C: Apr, Oct, Jan n=21, Apr 2015 n=19. Panel B: n=36 (3 children did not have DXA). Data are mean (SD) as a group and individual participant data over time.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.284 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB Journal→Same topicVitamin D Research Studies→French-language works237,207→