SynthesisMedicine2026
Genetic predisposition to serum 25 hydroxyvitamin D concentrations does not influence the risk of decreasing celiac disease in European ancestry: Evidence from meta-analysis and Mendelian randomization.
Synthesis in Medicine, 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
While prior research has indicated a possible association between serum 25 hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] and celiac disease (CD), key questions remain unresolved without clear consensus. To assess association, we perform Mendelian randomization and a systematic review and meta-analysis of existing studies in European ancestry. A systematic review and meta-analysis performed by using both standardized mean difference and a Bayesian framework. Moreover, Mendelian randomization conducted via Generalized Summary-data-based Mendelian randomization (GSMR) and two-sample Mendelian randomization. Data on serum 25(OH)D levels were obtained from the Medical Research Council's Integrative Epidemiology Unit (GWAS ID: ebi-a-GCST90000618; N = 4,96,946), while data on CD included 11,812 cases and 229 controls (GWAS ID: ebi-a-GCST005523). The main method used was the random inverse variance weighted (IVW) approach, supplemented by various sensitivity analyses to strengthen the findings. Both the meta-analysis and Mendelian randomization analysis indicate that vitamin D levels have no effect on the risk of developing celiac disease. Using a random-effects model, the standardized mean difference was calculated as -0.79 (95% CI: -2.02, 0.45), which was not statistically significant (TStatistic=-1.77, P = .152). The Bayesian meta-analysis reinforced these results, showing a point estimate of -0.6 with a wide 95% credible interval of (-13.6, 13.2), highlighting substantial uncertainty regarding the true effect size. The GSMR also found no significant association between 25(OH)D levels and CD (OR = 0.988; 95% CI: 0.853-1.145; P = .878). This null finding was corroborated by two-sample Mendelian randomization (ORIVW = 0.72, 95% CI: 0.49-1.05, P = .091). The Steiger test confirmed the absence of a directional relationship, and cluster analysis revealed no heterogeneity patterns (ORIVW = 0.374, 95% CI: 0.238-0.588). These findings were consistent across multiple MR methods, including penalized MR, robust MR, penalized robust MR, MR-Egger (both t-distribution and radial approaches), SIMEX, MR-PRESSO, Maximum likelihood, MR-Mix, RAPS, MR-Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator, debiased IVW, and contamination mixture models. By questioning the presumed direct connection between 25(OH)D and CD, it appears that 25(OH)D may not be a primary contributor to CD, which could impact future prevention approaches and alter clinical guidelines.
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.