Does vitamin D supplementation impact serotonin levels? A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background and Aims Vitamin D deficiency impacts a significant proportion of the world's population, and this deficiency has been linked to various conditions characterized by imbalanced serotonin regulation. The objective of this systematic review and meta‐analysis was to evaluate the effect of vitamin D supplementation on serum serotonin levels. Methods We conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Central for Randomized Clinical Trials, and Web of Science up to September 2022, without any language restrictions. The effect sizes were calculated using the standard mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Results Six randomized clinical trials involving 356 participants were included in the analysis. Our findings indicated no significant changes in serotonin levels between the intervention and control groups (SMD: 0.24 ng/mL, 95% CI: −0.28, 0.75, p > 0.10). Subgroup analysis also did not reveal any significant changes in serotonin levels among children, participants with autism spectrum disorders, interventions lasting 10 weeks or longer, or those receiving vitamin D doses below 4000 IU/day. Conclusion Although the results obtained in this systematic review are inconclusive, they support the need for further well‐designed randomized trials to assess the potential role of vitamin D supplementation in regulating serotonin levels and potentially ameliorating depression and related disorders.
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 | 0.012 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".