Both high and low plasma levels of 25-hydroxy vitamin D increase blood pressure in a normal rat model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The lower threshold plasma 25-hydroxy vitamin D (25(OH)D) level for optimal cardiovascular health is unclear, whereas the toxicity threshold is less clear. The aim of this study was to examine the cardiovascular-vitamin D dose-response curve in a normal rat model. Doses of cholecalciferol ranged from deficiency to toxic levels (equivalent to human doses of 0, 0·015, 0·25 and 3·75mg/d) for 4 weeks, and then cardiovascular health was examined using blood pressure telemetry and high-resolution ultrasound in normal male rats (n 16/group, 64 rats total). After 1 month, only the 0·25mg/d group had plasma 25(OH)D that was within current recommended range (100-125 nmol/l), and all groups failed to change plasma Ca or phosphate. Systolic blood pressure increased significantly (10-15 mmHg) in the rat groups with plasma 25(OH)D levels at both 30 and 561 nmol/l (groups fed 0 and 3·75mg/d) compared with the group fed the equivalent to 0·015mg/d (43 nmol/l 25(OH)D). Although not significant, the group fed the equivalent to 0·25mg/d (108 nmol/l 25(OH)D) also showed a 10 mmHg increase in systolic blood pressure. Carotid artery diameter was significantly smaller and wall thickness was larger, leading to higher peak carotid systolic blood velocity in these two groups. Despite these vascular changes, cardiac function did not differ among treatment groups. The key finding in this study is that arterial stiffness and systolic blood pressure both showed a U-shaped dose-response for vitamin D, with lowest values (best cardiovascular health) observed when plasma 25(OH)D levels were 43 nmol/l in normal male rats.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".