Prospective pilot study evaluating a vitamin D3 loading dose in critically ill children with vitamin D deficiency
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Vitamin D deficiency is a common finding in critically ill children. However, the optimal supplementation strategy in this patient population is unknown. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of high-dose (10 000 IU/kg, max. 400 000 IU) vitamin D supplementation on 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 (25[OH]D3) levels in pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) patients with baseline vitamin D deficiency. METHODS: This was a prospective, institutional review board-approved pilot research study performed at the University of South Alabama Women's and Children's Hospital in Mobile, AL. The study sample consisted of patients less than 18 years old admitted to the PICU with baseline 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) level less than 30 ng/ml. Included patients received a one-time dose of vitamin D3 orally or via gastric tube (10 000 IU/kg, max. 400 000 IU). RESULTS: A total of 17 patients were screened with 11 included in the study. Blood analysis revealed a significant increase in 25(OH)D3 level from baseline to 12-h post dose (21.6 [4.5] ng/ml vs. 46.7 [15.5] ng/ml, P < 0.001). At the 12-h post-dose time point, 10/11 patients (91%) had 25(OH)D3 levels that were greater than 30 ng/ml. No adverse effects were observed. CONCLUSION: Vitamin D3 supplementation at a dose of 10 000 IU/kg (max. 400 000 IU) significantly increased 25(OH)D3 levels in critically ill pediatric patients.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".