ArticleNutrition & metabolism2026
Low vitamin D status and cardiometabolic trait clustering in a primary-care adult cohort: association analysis and exploratory explainable machine-learning classification.
Article 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLow serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) commonly co-exists with obesity and adverse cardiometabolic traits. However, its cross-sectional association with dyslipidaemia, body composition and glycaemic markers in primary-care adults remains incompletely characterised. This study examined these associations as the primary objective and, as a secondary exploratory objective, assessed whether routine clinical variables could classify concurrent vitamin D deficiency using interpretable machine-learning models.
methodsIn this cross-sectional study, adults attending routine health check-up services underwent anthropometric and body-composition assessment (BMI, body fat mass, body fat percentage and lean mass), metabolic-profile screening and vitamin-status assessment. Vitamin D status was classified as deficient (< 20 ng/mL), insufficient (20-29.9 ng/mL) or sufficient (≥ 30 ng/mL). Group comparisons, correlation analyses and multivariable regression models were performed. In a secondary exploratory analysis, logistic-regression and random-forest models were used to classify vitamin D deficiency from routine clinical variables after internal cross-validation.
resultsIn the overall analytic sample, the mean serum 25(OH)D level was 20.3 ± 8.0 ng/mL, and 50.3% of participants were obese. Vitamin D deficiency was associated with significantly higher BMI, body fat mass, body fat percentage, fasting blood glucose, HbA1c, total cholesterol (TC), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-c), triglycerides (TG) and TG-derived very-low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (VLDL-c) and with significantly lower high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-c) (all p < 0.05). Serum 25(OH)D was inversely correlated with adiposity indices and TG and positively correlated with HDL-c. In the secondary exploratory classification analysis, the dimension-reduced random-forest model showed higher internal discrimination than logistic regression for classifying vitamin D deficiency in this dataset.
conclusionsPrimary-care cohort with a high obesity burden, lower vitamin D status was associated with greater adiposity, less favourable glycaemic indices and a more atherogenic lipid profile. The exploratory machine-learning analysis suggests that routine nutritional, body-composition and biochemical variables may help classify concurrent vitamin D deficiency. However, these findings require external validation and should not be interpreted as evidence of causality or immediate clinical utility.
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.