Bottle to body: how multivitamin/mineral supplements shape Canadian nutrient intake
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multivitamin/mineral (MVM) supplements are widely used in North America, presenting important implications for the practice of primary care, especially in Canada where practitioners frequently serve as patients' initial source of health guidance. The aim of this study is to determine the prevalence of MVM supplement use and the nutrient contribution of MVM supplements to the nutrient intake of Canadians. Dietary data from respondents >1 year in the Canadian Community Health Survey 2015 were used to estimate the prevalence of nutrient adequacy and intakes greater than the upper limit (UL). The National Cancer Institute method was used to estimate usual intakes of vitamin A, C, and magnesium. The prevalence of MVM consumption, as well as any individual vitamin and mineral supplement use, were 24.78% and 19.16%, respectively. Usage was most common among children aged 1-8 years and women over 51 years, particularly among nonobese children and higher-income households. Supplement users show a lower prevalence of nutrient inadequacy from dietary sources alone compared to nonusers of supplements. Also, supplement use is associated with a lower prevalence of nutrient inadequacy compared to nonusers. This study highlights that while MVM supplement use does contribute to overall dietary intake, current MVM supplement use is generally associated with markers of higher socio-economic status and thus those already consuming a healthy diet and less likely to need MVM supplemental nutrients. Aside from population subgroups with specific supplement recommendations (e.g., folic acid in women of childbearing age), dietary guidelines should continue to emphasize meeting nutrient requirements from a wide variety of foods.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".