Recommendations for a national policy on vitamin d supplementation for infants in Ireland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
At a time when nutrition-related diseases, caused mainly by excess, are on the increase in Ireland, \nit would seem reasonable to assume that the problem of nutritional deficiency should no longer \nbe a serious public health issue. Yet, the recent re-emergence of rickets (a severe form of vitamin \nD deficiency causing deformity of the bones) amongst infants in Ireland, which was thought to be \neradicated at the end of the last World War, clearly demonstrates that this is not the case. \nVitamin D, which is involved in calcium metabolism and is necessary for good bone health, is primarily \nproduced in the body via the action of sunlight on the skin. However, Ireland’s northerly latitude means \nthat vitamin D production from sunlight is severely compromised and as vitamin D is found in only a \nlimited number of foods, dietary intakes have little impact on overall vitamin D status. Indeed, apart \nfrom the cases of rickets that have been reported, there is much evidence that sub-optimal levels of \nvitamin D in Ireland are widespread. \nOther countries at latitudes similar to that of Ireland, e.g. Canada and the UK, have identified this \nproblem and have long since adopted vitamin D supplementation and/or fortification policies to tackle \nvitamin D inadequacy. It is a matter of some urgency that Ireland joins these other countries and has \nin place a policy on vitamin D supplementation that is safe, unambiguous and easily implemented. Since \nthe skeletal system is developing so rapidly in infancy, particularly in the first year of life, and rickets \nusually presents in early childhood, the recommendations for policy put forward by the Working \nGroup on Vitamin D Supplementation for Infants in Ireland focus on infants aged 0-12 months.
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 | 0.018 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.029 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.060 | 0.020 |
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".