Effects of 6-month vitamin D supplementation on insulin sensitivity and secretion: a randomised, placebo-controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether vitamin D3 supplementation improves insulin sensitivity, using the hyperinsulinemic-euglycemic clamp. DESIGN: This single-centre, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial randomised 96 participants at high risk of diabetes or with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes to vitamin D3 5000 IU daily or placebo for 6 months. METHODS: We assessed at baseline and 6 months: (1) primary aim: peripheral insulin sensitivity (M-value using a 2-h hyperinsulinemic-euglycemic clamp); (2) secondary aims: other insulin sensitivity (HOMA2%S, Matsuda) and insulin secretion (insulinogenic index, C-peptide area under the curve, HOMA2-B) indices using a 2-h oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT); β-cell function (disposition index: M-value × insulinogenic index); fasting and 2-h glucose post OGTT; HbA1c; anthropometry. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar between groups (% or mean ± s.d.): women 38.5%; age 58.7 ± 9.4 years; BMI 32.2 ± 4.1 kg/m2; prediabetes 35.8%; diabetes 20.0%; 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) 51.1 ± 14.2 nmol/L. At 6 months, mean 25(OH)D reached 127.6 ± 26.3 nmol/L and 51.8 ± 16.5 nmol/L in the treatment and placebo groups, respectively (P < 0.001). A beneficial effect of vitamin D3 compared with placebo was observed on M-value (mean change (95% CI): 0.92 (0.24-1.59) vs -0.03 (-0.73 to 0.67); P = 0.009) and disposition index (mean change (95% CI): 267.0 (-343.4 to 877.4) vs -55.5 (-696.3 to 585.3); P = 0.039) after 6 months. No effect was seen on other outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: In individuals at high risk of diabetes or with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes, vitamin D supplementation for 6 months significantly increased peripheral insulin sensitivity and β-cell function, suggesting that it may slow metabolic deterioration in this population.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".