Correlates of vitamin D status in Inuit preschoolers and adults and correlates of bone mineral density in Inuit preschoolers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evidence since the Nutrition Canada Survey (1973) suggests that Aboriginal people have low intakes of vitamin D and are shifting away from the consumption of traditional foods (TF).Further risk factors including higher body mass index (BMI), ethnicity, and latitude status predispose Aboriginal populations to low vitamin D status.In addition, previous studies suggest that Aboriginal children, as a group, are at a higher risk for low bone mass compared to other Canadian infants as a function of vitamin D. Thus, the objectives of this thesis were to: (i) determine the prevalence of vitamin D deficiency, insufficiency and optimal concentrations in Inuit adults and preschoolers; (ii) identify contributors to vitamin D intake, including market foods (MF) and TF among Inuit adults and preschoolers and compare usual vitamin D intakes to the recommended adequate intake (AI) in Inuit adults and preschoolers; (iii) identify predictors of an optimal vitamin D status in Inuit adults and preschoolers; and (iv) identify predictors associated with a higher bone mineral density (BMD) in Inuit preschoolers.Data for this study were obtained from the 2007-2008 Inuit Health Survey (IHS), which included 2595 adults (≥ 18 years (y)) and from the Child Inuit Health Survey (CIHS), which included 388 preschoolers (3 to 5 y) who were randomly selected.For objective (i), plasma or serum 25-hydroxy vitamin D (25(OH)D) was measured by Chemiluminesent technology (DiaSorin, Liaison).For objective (ii), usual intakes of adults were estimated by using information on within person variability obtained from a previous study.Vitamin D intake of
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".