Immune and respiratory support is the main area connected here, and any felt benefit should be read together with the human evidence base.
Some human supplement-context evidence is present and directly informs the score.
Representative tier calculated from paper evidence that passed the collection audit.
The representative ingredient tier is calculated from these target-level evidence groups.
Potential benefit studied in Immune and respiratory health.
This score reflects the strength of this benefit group. The ingredient tier also considers paper count, repetition, population, and study context.
This card is closer to a measured biomarker or lab outcome than a directly felt user benefit. These findings come from a defined study population, so everyday effects may differ.
This score reflects the strength of this benefit group. The ingredient tier also considers paper count, repetition, population, and study context.
Potential benefit studied in Exercise performance and recovery. These findings come from a defined study population, so everyday effects may differ.
This score reflects the strength of this benefit group. The ingredient tier also considers paper count, repetition, population, and study context.
These findings come from stress response, cortisol, anxiety, or sleep outcomes. They may mix felt benefits with physiological markers.
This score reflects the strength of this benefit group. The ingredient tier also considers paper count, repetition, population, and study context.
This is based on lab markers such as blood levels, deficiency correction, or absorption. Read it separately from directly felt outcomes.
This score reflects the strength of this benefit group. The ingredient tier also considers paper count, repetition, population, and study context.
This range includes studies in specific patient groups. It is not a general dose or recommendation.
Findings from studies of this ingredient alone are separated from findings involving another supplement or medication.
Side effects reported for the ingredient alone are separated from findings involving another supplement or medication.
Symptoms or adverse events reported in studies of this ingredient without another active ingredient.
These studies reported a negative change, reduced absorption, or another caution when substances were used together. They do not predict an individual outcome.
Positive combination findings are separated by how the study compared the groups. This is not a recommendation to combine them.
Shown only when a study directly compared the combination with an ingredient used alone and found a better result.
Paper IDs and full lists are private. Only study types and summaries are shown.
Vitamin D supplementation was safe and it protected against acute respiratory tract infection overall and patients who were very vitamin D deficient and those not receiving bolus doses experienced the most benefit.
It is concluded that vitamin D supplementation of 4000 IU/d for pregnant women is safe and most effective in achieving sufficiency in all women and their neonates regardless of race, whereas the current estimated average requirement is comparatively ineffectiv
This study shows proof-of-principle that specific nutritional supplementation alone might benefit geriatric patients, especially relevant for those who are unable to exercise.
Among persons at high risk for type 2 diabetes not selected for vitamin D insufficiency, vitamin D3 supplementation at a dose of 4000 IU per day did not result in a significantly lower risk of diabetes than placebo.
This meta-analysis of RCTs supports the use of calcium plus vitamin D supplements as an intervention for fracture risk reduction in both community-dwelling and institutionalized middle-aged to older adults.
It is suggested that vitamin D supplementation does not prevent fractures or falls, or have clinically meaningful effects on bone mineral density, and there is little justification to use vitamin D supplements to maintain or improve musculoskeletal health.