Vitamin D Supplementation in Military Personnel: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Vitamin D supplementation is important in military research because of its role in musculoskeletal health. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review examined the effects of vitamin D supplementation on serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) concentrations and musculoskeletal health outcomes in military personnel. DATA SOURCES: A comprehensive search was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, SportDiscus, and the Cochrane Library databases and the reference lists of existing review articles and relevant studies. STUDY SELECTION: Reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full texts of the articles using predefined criteria. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 3. DATA EXTRACTION: Three reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the methodological quality. Mean differences with 95% CI in serum 25(OH)D concentrations between the vitamin D and placebo arms were calculated. RESULTS: Four RCTs were included in the qualitative analyses. The 25(OH)D concentrations were improved with 2000 IU/d supplementation (mean difference, 3.90 ng/mL; 95% CI, 0.22-7.58). A trial on female Navy recruits showed a significant decrease in stress fractures (risk ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.62-0.95), particularly tibial fractures, from daily supplementation of 800 IU vitamin D and 2000 mg calcium. CONCLUSION: There was a positive trend in 25(OH)D concentrations from higher doses of supplementary vitamin D in military submariners and a possible benefit to bone health when vitamin D was combined with calcium.
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 | 0.020 | 0.085 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.015 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".