The Association Between Vitamin D Status, Vitamin D Supplementation, Sunlight Exposure, and Parkinson’s Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND This literature review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the association between deficiency of vitamin D, or 25-hydroxyvitamin D, and Parkinson's disease, and whether vitamin D from supplements and sunlight improves the symptoms of Parkinson's disease. MATERIAL AND METHODS A literature review and meta-analysis were performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Systematic literature review was performed using databases that included the Web of Science, PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase. The Jadad scale (the Oxford quality scoring system) and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) were used to evaluate the quality of the studies. RESULTS Eight studies were included in the meta-analysis. Both 25-hydroxyvitamin D insufficiency (<30 ng/mL) (OR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.29-2.43; P<0.001) and deficiency (<20 ng/mL) (OR, 2.55; 95% CI, 1.98-3.27; P<0.001) were significantly associated with an increased risk of Parkinson's disease when compared with normal controls Sunlight exposure (³15 min/week) was significantly associated with a reduced risk of Parkinson's disease (OR, 0.02; 95% CI, 0.00-0.10; P<0.001). The use of vitamin D supplements was effective in increasing 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels (SMD, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.40-2.18; P<0.001), but had no significant effect on motor function (MD, -1.82; 95% CI, -5.10-1.45; P=0.275) in patients with Parkinson's disease. CONCLUSIONS Insufficiency and deficiency of 25-hydroxyvitamin D and reduced exposure to sunlight were significantly associated with an increased risk of Parkinson's disease. However, vitamin D supplements resulted in no significant benefits in improving motor function for patients with Parkinson's disease.
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 | 0.018 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.041 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".