Meta-Analysis of European Clinical Trials Characterizing the Healthy-Adult Serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D Response to Vitamin D Supplementation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To obtain reliable data that allow health authorities to re-evaluate recommendations for oral vitamin D uptake, we conducted a meta-analysis to investigate the impact of supplementation on serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) levels in healthy adults in Europe. Of the publications identified (n = 4005) in our literature search (PUBMED, through 2 January 2022), 49 primary studies (7320 subjects, 73 study arms) were eligible for inclusion in our meta-analysis. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB tool based on seven categories, according to which each study is rated using three grades, and overall was rated as rather low. The median duration of intervention was 136.78 days (range, 1088 days); the mean weighted baseline 25(OH)D concentration and mean age were 33.01 vs. 33.84 nmol/L and 46.8 vs. 44.8 years in the vitamin D and placebo groups, respectively. Using random-effects models, 25(OH)D levels were increased by 36.28 nmol/L (95% CI 31.97-40.59) in the vitamin D group compared to the placebo, with a relative serum increment of 1.77 nmol/L per 2.5 μg of vitamin D daily. Notably, the relative serum 25(OH)D increment was affected by various factors, including the dosage and baseline serum 25(OH)D concentration, decreasing with increasing vitamin D doses and with increasing baseline serum levels. We estimate that supplementation in all healthy adults in Europe with appr. 25 μg of vitamin D (1000 IU) daily would raise serum 25(OH)D levels in 95% of the population to ≥50 nmol/L. Our work provides health authorities with reliable data that can help to re-evaluate recommendations for oral vitamin D supplementation.
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 | 0.049 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".