ArticleIBRO neuroscience reports2025
Vitamin D and brain volumetric changes: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in IBRO neuroscience reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Neuroprotective effects of icariin in animal models of depression and anxiety: a systematic review of preclinical studies.BMC complementary medicine and therapies · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to investigate the relationship between vitamin D levels and brain volumetric changes in human studies. Method: We conducted a comprehensive search in PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases up to December 2024. A total of 450 studies were identified. Following title, abstract, and full-text screening, we included three studies for analysis. Data were extracted from these studies and analyzed using appropriate statistical methods. Result: Our analysis revealed that the included case-control and cohort studies were conducted in the United States, Norway, and the Netherlands. The studies exhibited a range of characteristics, including sample size (number of patients: 183-240), demographic variables, and methods of assessing both vitamin D levels and brain volume. Brain volume assessments included gray matter, white matter, and total brain volume. The total follow-up duration across studies was 11 years. The age of participants ranged from 30 to 64 years in one study, while in another, they were aged 65 years or older. The meta-analysis indicated no significant association between vitamin D levels and brain volumetric changes across the included studies (effect size: 0.07, 95 % CI= [-0.01, 0.15], P = 0.07, I Conclusion: This meta-analysis did not establish a significant association between vitamin D levels and brain volumetric changes. These findings highlighted the need for further large-scale studies to clarify the potential role of vitamin D in brain volume and to better understand the underlying mechanisms involved.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.