FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1970058422> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1970058422 endingPage "984" @default.
• W1970058422 startingPage "982" @default.
• W1970058422 abstract "Dear Sir:We appreciate the important work from Ng et al (1) characterizing the dose-response relation between vitamin D intake and changes in serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] concentrations in African Americans. We are, however, concerned that their approach has resulted in considerable overestimation of the intake of vitamin D needed by this population group. Specifically, the researchers’ a priori determination that vitamin D adequacy is achieved when 97.5% of the population achieves serum concentrations of 20 ng/mL—the concentration linked to the Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) value of the Dietary Reference Intakes (DRIs)—is a misuse of the RDA reference value as outlined by the Institute of Medicine (2, 3) and as discussed by others (4–6).In short, the definition of adequacy used by Ng et al is inappropriate for application to population groups. One cannot infer that persons with measures below the RDA—or in this case, the RDA-associated serum concentration—are inadequate, because, by definition, the RDA-associated serum concentration reflects a value that exceeds the needs of most individuals (2). Many persons below the RDA value have adequate status because a dose-response (or intake-adequacy) relation reflects a distribution of values across a population. Given this inherent variability, the appropriate approach to achieve a low prevalence of inadequacy within a population group—as verified by statistical modeling—is to shift the intake distribution so that most of the population (97.5%) has intakes above the Estimated Average Requirement (EAR), not above the RDA (3). The same approach applies to achieving serum values above the EAR-associated value, not above the RDA-associated value (6).Therefore, the approach taken by Ng et al (1) should have been to estimate how much vitamin D is needed to ensure a low prevalence of serum 25(OH)D concentrations below that specified as the EAR-associated value (ie, 16 ng/mL), not how much is needed to ensure that 97.5% of the population group achieves serum concentrations associated with a cutoff defined as the RDA-associated measure (ie, 20 ng/mL). The latter approach “forces” the majority of the population group to achieve serum concentrations that are greater, often considerably greater, than those needed to ensure adequacy, and in turn artificially inflates the needed increase in intakes of the group being studied. As can be seen in Figure 3 of Ng et al, a notably lower dose would have been suggested if the solid line had been drawn at 16 ng/mL, rather than at 20 ng/mL. The Ng et al analysis will be of much interest to those working in the vitamin D field and should therefore be corrected to reflect the intake amount needed to reduce the number of African Americans with serum 25(OH)D concentrations <16 ng/mL.This misapplication of the RDA value is not unique to this research group (5), and clearly it is tempting to use the RDA-associated serum concentration as the goal to ensure adequacy for nearly all. This approach, however, is not only inconsistent with the Institute of Medicine–recommended methodology that considers the variability in requirements within a population, it also increases the possibility of adverse effects if it results in a proportion of the population’s intakes above the Tolerable Upper Intake Level (UL). To illustrate this possibility, data published elsewhere for adults aged 19–70 y from NHANES 2005–2006 (6) are shown in Figure 1, which includes the DRI-established requirement distribution for serum 25(OH)D (dashed line) and the current observed serum 25(OH)D distribution for adults aged 19–70 y (solid line). Also shown in Figure 1 is the effect of shifting the current observed distribution so that all but 2.5% achieve the RDA-associated concentration (dotted line, without adjustment for a potential nonlinear relation between intake and serum increases). Some members of the population are likely to exceed the UL. Serum 25(OH)D concentrations approaching the UL may be of particular concern for African Americans. A recent publication (7) confirmed a reverse J-shaped association between 25(OH)D and all-cause mortality for NHANES participants and also showed an increased risk of mortality in non-Hispanic blacks that exceeded that for non-Hispanic whites at serum 25(OH)D concentrations of 40–47.6 ng/mL (RR: 2.1 in blacks compared with 1.1 in whites) and at ≥48 ng/mL (RR: 2.4 for blacks compared with 1.6 for whites; referent is 30–39.6 ng/mL). Although these risk estimates may not differ statistically (likely reflecting the small sample size of non-Hispanic blacks), the point estimates suggest a basis for concern for greatly increased serum 25(OH)D concentrations among this population group.FIGURE 1.Serum 25(OH)D reference distribution with a comparison of observed serum 25(OH)D concentrations for adults aged 19–70 y in NHANES 2005–2006 (n = 3871) with the observed distribution shifted so that 97.5% of the sample achieve 20 ng/mL. ...In addition, we note that Ng et al (1) did not take into account another key component in the setting of DRIs. That is, the nutrient dose-response relation must reflect the total exposure rather than an added exposure superimposed on an undefined underlying exposure. Their study as designed focused only on the contribution from the supplements administered; it failed to account for the “background” intake from dietary sources. Background vitamin D intake is not insignificant [estimated at 200–428 IU/d for age groups ≥1 y (6)] and, importantly, baseline vitamin D intake appears to alter the dose-response relation (8).Finally, in considering the issues raised by Ng et al (1), it is important to keep in mind that African Americans are an understudied population group for whom target serum concentrations of vitamin D are unclear, especially because the DRI was established on the basis of bone health, for which African Americans have an advantage relative to white populations (9). Furthermore, as shown by the recent report from Powe et al (10) concerning vitamin D binding protein among blacks, they may also experience genetic variation and other differences relative to the metabolism or bioavailability of vitamin D that have not been clearly elucidated. More research is needed in this population to discern vitamin D requirements; in the meantime, available research should at least appropriately apply the DRI constructs, and include contributions of diet, to build this literature." @default.
• W1970058422 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1970058422 creator A5042536982 @default.
• W1970058422 creator A5062125234 @default.
• W1970058422 creator A5064494885 @default.
• W1970058422 creator A5080526087 @default.
• W1970058422 date "2014-09-01" @default.
• W1970058422 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W1970058422 title "Vitamin D supplementation in African Americans: dose-response" @default.
• W1970058422 cites W1658829392 @default.
• W1970058422 cites W2016032395 @default.
• W1970058422 cites W2097741826 @default.
• W1970058422 cites W2106595063 @default.
• W1970058422 cites W2130546736 @default.
• W1970058422 cites W2152709646 @default.
• W1970058422 cites W2161519087 @default.
• W1970058422 doi "https://doi.org/10.3945/ajcn.114.090605" @default.
• W1970058422 hasPubMedCentralId "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/4135505" @default.
• W1970058422 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25142889" @default.
• W1970058422 hasPublicationYear "2014" @default.
• W1970058422 type Work @default.
• W1970058422 sameAs 1970058422 @default.
• W1970058422 citedByCount "8" @default.
• W1970058422 countsByYear W19700584222015 @default.
• W1970058422 countsByYear W19700584222017 @default.
• W1970058422 countsByYear W19700584222018 @default.
• W1970058422 countsByYear W19700584222023 @default.
• W1970058422 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1970058422 hasAuthorship W1970058422A5042536982 @default.
• W1970058422 hasAuthorship W1970058422A5062125234 @default.
• W1970058422 hasAuthorship W1970058422A5064494885 @default.
• W1970058422 hasAuthorship W1970058422A5080526087 @default.
• W1970058422 hasBestOaLocation W19700584221 @default.
• W1970058422 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W1970058422 hasConcept C134018914 @default.
• W1970058422 hasConcept C2776940978 @default.
• W1970058422 hasConcept C42407357 @default.
• W1970058422 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W1970058422 hasConceptScore W1970058422C126322002 @default.
• W1970058422 hasConceptScore W1970058422C134018914 @default.
• W1970058422 hasConceptScore W1970058422C2776940978 @default.
• W1970058422 hasConceptScore W1970058422C42407357 @default.
• W1970058422 hasConceptScore W1970058422C71924100 @default.
• W1970058422 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W1970058422 hasLocation W19700584221 @default.
• W1970058422 hasLocation W19700584222 @default.
• W1970058422 hasLocation W19700584223 @default.
• W1970058422 hasLocation W19700584224 @default.
• W1970058422 hasOpenAccess W1970058422 @default.
• W1970058422 hasPrimaryLocation W19700584221 @default.
• W1970058422 hasRelatedWork W1581604820 @default.
• W1970058422 hasRelatedWork W1967386430 @default.
• W1970058422 hasRelatedWork W1979139803 @default.
• W1970058422 hasRelatedWork W1998601765 @default.
• W1970058422 hasRelatedWork W2010236775 @default.
• W1970058422 hasRelatedWork W2023283117 @default.
• W1970058422 hasRelatedWork W2035973992 @default.
• W1970058422 hasRelatedWork W2040672875 @default.
• W1970058422 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W1970058422 hasRelatedWork W2754118680 @default.
• W1970058422 hasVolume "100" @default.
• W1970058422 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1970058422 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1970058422 magId "1970058422" @default.
• W1970058422 workType "article" @default.