4.6 Article

Sunlight and Other Determinants of Circulating 25-Hydroxyvitamin D Levels in Black and White Participants in a Nationwide US Study

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 177, 期 2, 页码 180-192

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/aje/kws223

关键词

dietary supplements; 25-hydroxyvitamin D; race; seasons; sex; sunlight; ultraviolet rays; vitamin D

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute
  2. US Public Health Service of the Department of Health and Human Services

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D), a marker for vitamin D status, is associated with bone health and possibly cancers and other diseases; yet, the determinants of 25(OH)D status, particularly ultraviolet radiation (UVR) exposure, are poorly understood. Determinants of 25(OH)D were analyzed in a subcohort of 1,500 participants of the US Radiologic Technologists (USRT) Study that included whites (n 842), blacks (n 646), and people of other races/ethnicities (n 12). Participants were recruited monthly (20082009) across age, sex, race, and ambient UVR level groups. Questionnaires addressing UVR and other exposures were generally completed within 9 days of blood collection. The relation between potential determinants and 25(OH)D levels was examined through regression analysis in a random two-thirds sample and validated in the remaining one third. In the regression model for the full study population, age, race, body mass index, some seasons, hours outdoors being physically active, and vitamin D supplement use were associated with 25(OH)D levels. In whites, generally, the same factors were explanatory. In blacks, only age and vitamin D supplement use predicted 25(OH)D concentrations. In the full population, determinants accounted for 25 of circulating 25(OH)D variability, with similar correlations for subgroups. Despite detailed data on UVR and other factors near the time of blood collection, the ability to explain 25(OH)D was modest.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据