{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02506265664160401, 'fraction_numerical': 0.012531328320802004, 'mean_word_length': 4.930693069306931, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Interpreting vitamin D assay results: proceed with caution.

Vitamin D deficiency and insufficiency are common in patients with CKD. Association studies suggest that low 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 (25-OH-D3) is a harbinger of poor outcomes in these patients. Serum 25-OH-D represents the best biomarker of vitamin D status, but there is much debate surrounding the performance of some of the assay methods. Programs such as the Vitamin D Standardization Program and Vitamin D External Quality Assessment Scheme (DEQAS) in the United Kingdom have allowed us to assess the accuracy and reproducibility of the available methods. Liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry-based methods for serum 25-OH-D measurement are emerging as more accurate and reliable alternatives to the immunoassay-based methods that have dominated over the past 2 decades. There is a renewed optimism that serum 25-OH-D is a useful biomarker to be used in patients with CKD, in particular to diagnose vitamin D deficiency and monitor vitamin D therapy. This commentary discusses some of the methodologic problems associated with serum 25-OH-D assays and their resolution, and looks forward to the future of vitamin D testing.