priors.science/reviews/vitamin-d

Vitamin D

The current evidence on 14 claims, ordered from most established to most contested. Each score is the panel’s evidence certainty: how firmly the literature supports the claim as stated.

16claims tracked

14assessed

222primary papers reviewed

26 Oct 2026latest evidence review

0 Established · 0 Likely · 4 Uncertain · 6 Doubtful · 4 Refuted | four-reviewer panel · PICO Framework

ClaimStandingEvidence certaintyCorpus

Pre-eclampsiaPregnancyUncertain64%19

High-dose vitamin D and fallsFallsUncertain60%20

Cancer mortalityCancerUncertain55%24

Type 2 diabetes preventionCardiometabolicUncertain50%22

Acute respiratory infectionRespiratoryDoubtful45%21

COVID-19 outcomesRespiratoryDoubtful37%20

Asthma exacerbationsRespiratoryDoubtful35%20

Cancer incidenceCancerDoubtful32%22

Major cardiovascular eventsCardiometabolicDoubtful32%22

Mortality in deficient adultsMortalityDoubtful30%20

Bone mineral density in adultsBoneRefuted27%24

All-cause mortalityMortalityRefuted27%24

Falls in older adultsFallsRefuted22%21

Fracture risk in general adultsBoneRefuted12%20

Track Vitamin D.

These claims are re-checked against new research as it is published. Track this topic for the full review, including each claim’s challenge and the papers behind it.

Track this topic →

Standing: what the evidence certainty means

Established≥ 85%Strong, consistent evidence. Unlikely to change.

Likely70–84%Well supported, with some gaps or indirect evidence.

Uncertain50–69%Mixed or limited evidence. Genuinely open.

Doubtful30–49%Little support; the weight of evidence leans against it.

Refuted< 30%The evidence contradicts it. Confidently false as stated.

A standing changes only when the score moves past a boundary by more than 4 points, the re-scoring noise floor; a score within 4 points of a boundary keeps its previous standing.