Influence of vitamin D supplementation on growth, body composition, pubertal development and spirometry in South African schoolchildren: a randomised controlled trial (ViDiKids)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether weekly oral vitamin D supplementation influences growth, body composition, pubertal development or spirometric outcomes in South African schoolchildren. DESIGN: Phase 3 double-blind randomised placebo-controlled trial. SETTING: Socioeconomically disadvantaged peri-urban district of Cape Town, South Africa. PARTICIPANTS: 1682 children of black African ancestry attending government primary schools and aged 6-11 years at baseline. INTERVENTIONS: (10 000 IU/week) versus placebo for 3 years. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Height-for-age and body mass index-for-age, measured in all participants; Tanner scores for pubertal development, spirometric lung volumes and body composition, measured in a subset of 450 children who additionally took part in a nested substudy. RESULTS: concentration at 3-year follow-up was higher among children randomised to receive vitamin D versus placebo (104.3 vs 64.7 nmol/L, respectively; mean difference (MD) 39.7 nmol/L, 95% CI 37.6 to 41.9 nmol/L). No statistically significant differences in height-for-age z-score (adjusted MD (aMD) -0.08, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.03) or body mass index-for-age z-score (aMD -0.04, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.07) were seen between vitamin D versus placebo groups at follow-up. Among substudy participants, allocation to vitamin D versus placebo did not influence pubertal development scores, % predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), % predicted forced vital capacity (FVC), % predicted FEV1/FVC, fat mass or fat-free mass. CONCLUSIONS: boosted vitamin D status but did not influence growth, body composition, pubertal development or spirometric outcomes in South African schoolchildren. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02880982, South African National Clinical Trials Register DOH-27-0916-5527.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".