Comparative Analysis of Dietary and Supplemental Intake of Calcium and Vitamin D among Canadian Older Adults with Heart Disease and/or Osteoporosis in 2004 and 2015
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the role of calcium and vitamin D in osteoporosis and heart disease, little research has examined changes in the intake of calcium and vitamin D among individuals with these conditions over time. Using data from the 2004 and 2015 Canadian Community Health Surveys, we investigated changes in dietary and supplemental intake of calcium and vitamin D among Canadian older adults aged ≥ 50 years, both with and without heart disease and/or osteoporosis, between 2004 and 2015. Notable declines in dietary calcium intake occurred, particularly among non-supplement users. Surprisingly, individuals with osteoporosis and heart disease, who are at higher nutritional risk, were less likely to use calcium supplements in 2015 compared to 2004. Among calcium supplement users, those with osteoporosis or both conditions experienced significant reductions in their usual calcium intake in 2015, with an increased proportion failing to meet recommended intake levels. Conversely, vitamin D supplement users experienced a substantial rise in vitamin D intake in 2015. In 2015, only a small proportion of supplement users did not meet the recommended vitamin D intake levels. These findings underscore the importance of public health initiatives to facilitate safe increases in calcium and vitamin D intake for older adults, particularly those with heart disease and osteoporosis.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".