Observational studyLipids in health and disease2026
Baseline self-reported supplement category use and two-visit difference in lipoprotein(a): an observational analysis in UK Biobank.
Observational study in Lipids in health and disease, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCirculating Lp(a) is largely genetically determined, but repeated measurements indicate that Lp(a) concentrations may differ within individuals over time. It remains unclear whether self-reported use of common supplement categories is associated with differences between repeated Lp(a) measurements. We aimed to investigate associations between baseline self-reported supplement-category use and two-visit difference in Lp(a), and to explore whether these associations differed by Lp(a) genetic risk.
methodsWe included 12,109 UK Biobank participants with Lp(a) measured at baseline and at the first repeat assessment. Self-reported use of common supplement categories (vitamins A, B, C, D, E, folate, and multi-vitamins) was assessed by questionnaire. The primary outcome was the continuous two-visit difference in log10[Lp(a)], defined as log10[repeat-assessment Lp(a)] minus log10[baseline Lp(a)]. The primary analysis used core behavioral/sociodemographic-adjusted multivariable linear regression. Threshold-category and genetic-risk analyses were secondary and exploratory.
resultsAmong 12,109 participants with repeated Lp(a) measurements over a median 4.4 years, estimates in the primary core behavioral/sociodemographic-adjusted continuous log-scale model were small and centered near the null, ranging from β = -0.014 to 0.005 log10 units, corresponding to approximately - 3.18% to 1.22% relative difference in the conditional repeat-to-baseline Lp(a) ratio. None met the Bonferroni-corrected threshold. Expanded clinical/genetic adjustment and secondary descriptive screens did not alter the null interpretation.
conclusionsIn this selected repeat-assessment sample, baseline self-reported use of common supplement categories was not associated with two-visit difference in log10[Lp(a)]. Because supplement use was measured only as broad baseline self-reported categories, these findings should not be interpreted as evidence about dose-specific, sustained, or biological effects of vitamin supplementation on Lp(a).
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.