↓ Skip to main content

The vitamin D paradox in Black Americans: a systems-based approach to investigating clinical practice, research, and public health - expert panel meeting report

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Proceedings, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#4 of 367)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
17 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The vitamin D paradox in Black Americans: a systems-based approach to investigating clinical practice, research, and public health - expert panel meeting report
Published in
BMC Proceedings, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12919-018-0102-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

LaVerne L. Brown, Barbara Cohen, Derrick Tabor, Giovanna Zappalà, Padma Maruvada, Paul M. Coates

Abstract

The Office of Dietary Supplements, the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities, the National Institute on Aging, and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, all components of the U.S. National Institutes of Health, co-sponsored an expert panel meeting to discuss the vitamin D paradox in Black Americans. The paradox is that despite markedly low (or "deficient") measures of vitamin D status in Black Americans, the incidence of falls, fractures, or osteopenia are significantly lower compared to White American counterparts with similar vitamin D status. Six panelists were invited to engage in guided discussions on the state of the science with respect to key knowledge gaps impacting vitamin D status and bone health. They were also asked to reflect on best approaches for advancing the science. A central theme throughout the discussions was that there may be many factors that impact Vitamin D levels in Black Americans and understanding these factors may be key to understanding mechanisms for improving bone health in all populations. Data presented showed that although adiposity, skin pigmentation, vitamin D binding protein polymorphisms, and genetics all contributed to differences in 25(OH)D levels in Black vs. White Americans, no one factor alone could fully explain the vitamin D paradox in Black Americans. However, the panelists did agree that the paradox is significant and warrants further investigation. There was consensus that Black Americans gained no skeletal benefits from high doses of vitamin D supplementation, and that high levels of the biomarker of vitamin D status, serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D or 25(OH)D, in this population are almost certain to result in adverse effects. Some panelists proposed that additional studies are needed so that the Institute of Medicine (IOM) can better define the safe upper limits of vitamin D intake in this and other subpopulations. Others suggested a need for better, more generalizable biomarkers of bone health to advance the science.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 55 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 16%
Student > Master 8 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 9%
Other 4 7%
Student > Bachelor 2 4%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 20 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 5%
Mathematics 1 2%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 25 45%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 49. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 February 2022.
All research outputs
#682,886
of 21,774,582 outputs
Outputs from BMC Proceedings
#4
of 367 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,838
of 298,652 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Proceedings
#2
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,774,582 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 367 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 298,652 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.