Safety of High-Dose Vitamin D Supplementation: Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: More than 3% of adults report vitamin D intakes of 4000 IU/day or more, but the safety of this practice is unknown. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this work is to establish whether vitamin D doses up to 10 000 IU/day are safe and well tolerated. DESIGN: The Calgary Vitamin D Study was a 3-year, double-blind, randomized controlled trial. SETTING: A single-center study was conducted at the University of Calgary, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Participants included healthy adults (n = 373) ages 55 to 70 years with serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D 30 to 125 nmol/L. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to vitamin D3 400, 4 000, or 10 000 IU/day. Calcium supplementation was initiated if dietary calcium intake was less than 1200 mg/day. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: In these prespecified secondary analyses, changes in serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D, calcium, creatinine, 24-hour urine calcium excretion, and incidence of adverse events were assessed. Between-group differences in adverse events were examined using incident rate differences and logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 373 participants (400: 124, 4000: 125, 10 000: 124), 49% were male, mean (SD) age was 64 (4) years, and 25-hydroxyvitamin D 78.0 (19.5) nmol/L. Serum calcium, creatinine, and 24-hour urine calcium excretion did not differ between treatments. Mild hypercalcemia (2.56-2.64 mmol/L) occurred in 15 (4%) participants (400: 0%, 4000: 3%, 10 000: 9%, P = .002); all cases resolved on repeat testing. Hypercalciuria occurred in 87 (23%) participants (400: 17%, 4000: 22%, 10 000: 31%, P = .01). Clinical adverse events were experienced by 365 (97.9%) participants and were balanced across treatment arms. CONCLUSIONS: The safety profile of vitamin D supplementation is similar for doses of 400, 4000, and 10 000 IU/day. Hypercalciuria was common and occurred more frequently with higher doses. Hypercalcemia occurred more frequently with higher doses but was rare, mild, and transient.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".