ReviewNutrients2026
The Proposed Vitamin D-Homocysteine Relationship in Cardiometabolic Health: A Narrative Review of Mechanisms, Evidence, and Research Phenotypes.
Review in Nutrients, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The clinical relevance of a proposed relationship between vitamin D status and homocysteine remains uncertain. This narrative review integrates mechanistic, observational, Mendelian randomization (MR), and trial evidence. A documented supplementary search of PubMed and Europe PMC was executed on 21 September 2026 for publications through 31 July 2026; no formal risk-of-bias assessment or quantitative synthesis was performed. Experimental studies support vitamin D-dependent regulation of homocysteine metabolism and homocysteine-related suppression of vitamin D signaling, but reciprocal regulation has not been established in humans. Human biomarker associations and supplementation effects on homocysteine are heterogeneous; two frequently cited intervention publications report the same trial. Additional longitudinal and multibiomarker studies provide preliminary outcome associations, without externally validating the proposed four-category classification or its treatment utility. Homocysteine MR signals are more consistent for stroke than coronary disease, subject to validity and multiplicity concerns. Vitamin D MR is predominantly null, including the republished stratified analysis, and large supplementation trials have not demonstrated consistent cardiovascular benefit. A combined folate-vitamin D cognitive trial did not demonstrate its primary intention-to-treat benefit and does not validate vascular treatment selection. Clinical outcome trials carry greater weight for treatment decisions than molecular plausibility or biomarker co-occurrence. The proposed classification and explanatory models remain hypothesis-generating: a clinically meaningful reciprocal axis and differential benefit from phenotype-guided combined nutritional intervention are unproven.
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.