Vitamin D Status of Anabaptist Children in Southwestern Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective was to determine vitamin D status of Old Order Anabaptist children in rural Southwestern, Ontario, Canada, given concerns of community healthcare professionals. Fifty-two children (2.5 months - 6.5 years) (56% female) were recruited. Finger prick blood spot (BSp) samples were analyzed for 25-hydroxy (OH) vitamins D2 & D3 (BSp25(OH)D). Three-day food records were evaluated using Dietary Reference Intakes and Canada’s Food Guide (CFG) (Bush, et al. 2007). Compared to national Canadian data: mean BSp25(OH)D concentrations (78±31 nmol/L) were similar; a slightly smaller proportion (0% vs 2%) were at risk of deficiency (<30 nmol/L) or had inadequate status (4% vs 7%) (<40 nmol/L); and 10% vs 1% had BSp25(OH)D higher than 125 nmol/L. BSp25(OH)D was significantly associated (r2=0.358; p=0.001) with total vitamin D intake. From food alone, vitamin D intake was 68±39 IU/day, lower than the Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) of 600 IU/day, and intakes were all below the Estimated Average Requirement (EAR) of 400 IU. Even including supplemental vitamin D, 87% were below the EAR (total intake=213±194 IU/day). No children had vitamin D intakes greater than the Upper Limit. Servings of milk and alternates were 1.6±0.8/day (CFG=2/day). Unfortified farm milk was consumed by 88% of children and 89% received a vitamin D supplement. Results were comparable to recent Canadian data suggesting that most children have adequate vitamin D status. Nevertheless, these findings support the need to encourage appropriate vitamin D intake (from food and supplements) to achieve the RDA for Old Order Anabaptist children in these communities. [Abstract by authors.]
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".