MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Lean Mass Accretion Associates With Vitamin D Intake: A 6 Month Randomized Controlled Trial in 2–8 y Olds Using Fortified Foods

2016· article· en· W4389024220 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Neil R. Brett, Colleen A Parks, Paula Lavery, Sherry Agellon, Catherine A. Vanstone, Jonathon L. Maguire, Frank Rauch, Hope A. Weiler

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVitamin D Research Studies
Canadian institutionsMontreal Children's HospitalUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's HospitalMcGill University
FundersDairy Farmers of Canada
KeywordsMedicineLean body massVitamin D and neurologyAnthropometryVitaminRandomized controlled trialAnimal scienceBody mass indexInternal medicineBody weight

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canadian children do not meet the recommended dietary intake for vitamin D. Vitamin D is well established as a fundamental nutrient for bone health, but the effect of vitamin D intake on lean mass accretion in children is not well understood. The objective was to determine whether increasing vitamin D intake by 300IU/d, compared to normal intakes (~200 IU/d), would be beneficial for lean mass accretion in young children. Healthy children 2 to 8 y (n=51) from the Greater Montreal area, randomized by family, consumed vitamin D intakes of ~200 IU/day in the control group with an additional 300 IU/d in cheese or yogurt beverage in the fortified group for 6 months starting in October 2014 (clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02387892). Whole body and regional lean mass and fat mass were measured at baseline and 6 months using DXA (Hologic Discovery APEX software version 13.3). Fasted venous blood was sampled at baseline, 3 and 6 mo for measurement of vitamin D status (total serum 25(OH)D: Liaison, Diasorin and LC‐MS/MS) as well as ionized calcium (ABL80 Flex, Radiometer) followed by standardized anthropometry, demographics plus activity and dietary questionnaires. A mixed model ANOVA with post‐hoc Bonferroni adjustment was used to test for differences between groups. Data are mean ± SE unless otherwise stated. At baseline participants (5.64 ± 0.27 y) were 61% male (31/51), had BMI z‐score of 0.65 ± 0.12 with 4% (2/51) having serum 25(OH)D concentration below 50 nmol/L and there were no children who were deficient (< 30 nmol/L). Forty nine (96%) children completed the study with no differences between groups in baseline vitamin D intakes (). There were no differences between groups for macronutrient intakes, except at baseline where fat intake was significantly higher in the control group (p = 0.01). Serum 25(OH)D stayed above 50 nmol/L in 80% (39/49) of children across the study, no children became deficient and there were no changes in ionized calcium. There was a significant difference between groups (p = 0.02) for percent change in total lean mass (control: 6.2% ± 1.2%, fortified: 9.2% ± 1.0%) () but not appendicular lean mass (control: 7.8% ± 1.9%, fortified: 13.2% ± 1.9%) over 6 months. There was no difference between groups for percent change in total fat mass (control: −4.3% ± 4.2%, fortified: −7.1% ± 3.7%) () over 6 months. Change in android and gynoid fat, along with fat mass and lean mass indices (trunk/limb fat mass ratio, lean mass + bone mineral content/height 2 ) were not different between groups. These data in healthy young children suggests that a vitamin D intake meeting the estimated average requirement (400 IU/d), compared to normal intakes, may have a positive impact on lean mass accretion without significantly influencing fat mass during winter months. Support or Funding Information This work was supported by funding from Dairy Farmers of Canada, the Canadian Foundation for Innovation and Canada Research Chairs and in‐kind support from Agropur and Ultima Foods for the study products. Dairy Farmers of Canada did not have a role in design, implementation, analysis or interpretation. Vitamin D intake assessed by a validated 30 d food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) in 2–8 y old children. Time point Control group Fortified group Baseline 202 ± 76 (n=25) 248 ± 73 (n=26) 3 month 239 ± 117 (n=24) 466 ± 95 (n=26) 6 month 241 ± 124 (n=23) 486 ± 90(n=26) Boxes with different superscripts are significantly different, using a repeated measures mixed model ANOVA. Data are unadjusted mean ± SD.

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: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.087

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 designRandomized trial
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
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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