MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7161763772 · doi:10.82308/4318

Vitamin D dose-response study to establish dietary requirements in infants: a pilot study

2008· dissertation· en· W7161763772 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kathryn Trussler

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVitamin D Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVitamin D and neurologyAnthropometryVitaminvitamin D deficiencyParathyroid hormoneBone densityBone mineral

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The primary objective of this study was to identify a daily dosage of oral vitamin D for optimal vitamin D status and growth in infants. Breastfed infants (n=32) were randomized to 400, 800, 1200 or 1600 IU/day of vitamin D3 beginning at one month of age. Blood samples collected at baseline, 4 and 8 weeks thereafter were analyzed for serum 25 (OH) D, parathyroid hormone, alkaline phosphatase, and total and ionized calcium. Growth was assessed by anthropometry and bone mineral content and density by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. Infants showed normal growth throughout the study. Significant increases in 25(OH) D were observed in the 800 IU, 1200 IU and 1600 IU, but not 400 IU, treatment groups. Only 50% of infants receiving 400 IU/day had 25(OH) D concentrations at the optimal 75 nmol/L cutoff. Thus 400 IU/day of vitamin D3 may be inadequate to achieve optimal vitamin D status for 97% of Canadian infants.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.071
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.324 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicVitamin D Research Studies→French-language works237,207→