ReviewNutrition & metabolism2026
The vitamin D-cardiovascular nexus unraveling mechanistic promise and trial reality.
Review in Nutrition & metabolism, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEpidemiological data consistently associate low vitamin D status with elevated cardiovascular risk, yet causal mechanisms remain contested.
methodsThis review synthesized evidence through a protocol-guided approach, with database searches (PubMed/Embase/Web of Science; 2010–2024) focused on RCTs, mechanistic studies of cardiovascular pathways, and high-quality meta-analyses (AMSTAR-2 score ≥ 8).
resultsMechanistic investigations consistently demonstrate vitamin D’s pleiotropic cardiovascular actions, including suppression of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, enhancement of endothelial nitric oxide bioavailability, and attenuation of vascular inflammation and fibrosis—effects validated in human models. In contrast, large-scale randomized trials and their meta-analyses have uniformly failed to demonstrate significant cardiovascular benefit from vitamin D supplementation in the general population. This discordance appears largely attributable to methodological limitations in trial design, particularly the inclusion of predominantly vitamin D-sufficient participants and the absence of stratification for baseline deficiency status or genetic determinants of vitamin D metabolism. Notably, post-hoc analyses suggest potential signal enrichment in cohorts with severe baseline deficiency, though these observations require prospective validation.
conclusionsCurrent evidence does not support population-wide vitamin D supplementation for cardiovascular risk reduction. The persistent mechanistic-clinical disconnect underscores fundamental gaps in trial methodology rather than invalidating biological plausibility. Future research must prioritize precision nutrition frameworks that integrate baseline vitamin D status, dynamic response biomarkers, and genomic profiling to identify subgroups where supplementation may confer meaningful benefit. Until such evidence emerges from rigorously designed trials, clinical efforts should focus on correcting documented deficiencies in high-risk metabolic phenotypes, with cardiovascular outcomes regarded as potential secondary benefits rather than primary therapeutic targets.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.