Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 2,709

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Dietary Reference Intakes for Calcium and Vitamin D

·2018·Pediatric Clinical Practice Guidelines & Policies

Abstract

The charge to the committee (Institute of Medicine Committee to Review Dietary Reference Intakes for Vitamin D and Calcium) was to assess current relevant data and update, as appropriate, the DRIs (Dietary Reference Intakes) for vitamin D and calcium. The review was to include consideration of chronic disease indicators (e.g., reduction in risk of cancer) and other (non-chronic disease) indicators and health outcomes. The definitions of these terms are discussed below. Consistent with the framework for DRI development, the indicators to assess adequacy and excess intake were to be selected based on the strength and quality of the evidence and their demonstrated public health significance, taking into consideration sources of uncertainty in the evidence. Further, the committee deliberations were to incorporate, as appropriate, systematic evidence-based reviews of the literature.Specifically, in carrying out its work, the committee was to: Review evidence on indicators to assess adequacy and indicators to assess excess intake relevant to the general North American population, including groups whose needs for or sensitivity to the nutrient may be affected by particular conditions that are widespread in the population such as obesity or age-related chronic diseases. Special groups under medical care whose needs or sensitivities are affected by rare genetic disorders or diseases and their treatments were to be excluded; Consider systematic evidence-based reviews, including those made available by the sponsors as well as others, and carefully document the approach used by the committee to carry out any of its own literature reviews; Regarding selection of indicators upon which to base DRI values for adequate intake, give priority to selecting indicators relevant to the various age, gender, and life stage groups that will allow for the determination of an Estimated Average Requirement (EAR); Regarding selection of indicators upon which to base DRI values for upper levels of intake, give priority to examining whether a critical adverse effect can be selected that will allow for the determination of a so-called benchmark intake; Update DRI values, as appropriate, using a risk assessment approach that includes (1) identification of potential indicators to assess adequacy and excess intake, (2) selection of the indicators of adequacy and excess intake, (3) intake-response assessment, (4) dietary intake assessment, and (5) risk characterization. Identify research gaps to address the uncertainties identified in the process of deriving the reference values and evaluating their public health implications.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1542/9781610021494-part06-dietary_reference_int

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 2,709

Metadata

Venue
Pediatric Clinical Practice Guidelines & Policies
Published
2018-05-01
Pages
1318-1318
OpenAlex
W1531229431
Cited by
2,709
References
0
FWCI
621.19
Type
book chapter
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Dietary Reference Intakes for Calcium and Vitamin D. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1542/9781610021494-part06-dietary_reference_int
The paper
Dietary Reference Intakes for Calcium and Vitamin D. (2018). Pediatric Clinical Practice Guidelines & Policies. https://doi.org/10.1542/9781610021494-part06-dietary_reference_int

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.