Jump to content

Talk:Vitamin D: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Aylissa-S (talk | contribs)
Asked about taste.
Line 76: Line 76:


::I attempted to add carefully weighted information on the associations of vitamin D and cancer last year. Including the reviews cited as refs 75 to 80 was the consensus along with the current wording. There are similar excellent large prospective series to the one above and systematic reviews/meta-analyses on individual cancers, but I could not find any new reputable secondary sources to justify changing the current wording. I am always in favor of a larger (scientific) section on ''Epidemiology of associated disorders'', and making the recommendation for ''Health effects of supplementation'' separate, and subject to the best WP:MEDRS rules. [[User:Jrfw51|Jrfw51]] ([[User talk:Jrfw51|talk]]) 20:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
::I attempted to add carefully weighted information on the associations of vitamin D and cancer last year. Including the reviews cited as refs 75 to 80 was the consensus along with the current wording. There are similar excellent large prospective series to the one above and systematic reviews/meta-analyses on individual cancers, but I could not find any new reputable secondary sources to justify changing the current wording. I am always in favor of a larger (scientific) section on ''Epidemiology of associated disorders'', and making the recommendation for ''Health effects of supplementation'' separate, and subject to the best WP:MEDRS rules. [[User:Jrfw51|Jrfw51]] ([[User talk:Jrfw51|talk]]) 20:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


== Taste ==
Vitamin D has no discernible taste (at least for me and my vitamin D gel caps), should the article mention this?
[[User:Aylissa-S|Aylissa-S]] ([[User talk:Aylissa-S|talk]]) 06:35, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:36, 23 September 2016

Template:Wikipedia CD selection


Broken ref

There is one ref that has been broken for years, due to 2 refs using the same name ("Ross_2011"). I had to go back in the history quite far to find the version in which this ref was not broken. In this version, one of the refs was named "RossetalAJCE2011". This one was not referenced anywhere else, whereas Ross_2011 was references many places.

The very next revision breaks the ref.

So I've corrected it by giving the duplicate (less prevalent) ref the old name of "RossetalAJCE2011". The current article also seems to have another reference that was to Ross_2011 that looks much like the other RossetalAJCE2011 reference so I've changed that also. --Ericjs (talk) 05:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Vitamin D. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:05, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1,25-Vitamin D3 Deficiency Induces Albuminuria

http://ajp.amjpathol.org/article/S0002-9440(16)00017-1/abstract

"Vitamin D plays an important role in renal (patho)physiology. Patients with glomerular diseases have an injured renal filtration barrier, leading to proteinuria and reduced renal function. An impaired renal function also leads to 1,25-vitamin D3 deficiency as a result of reduced renal 1α-hydroxylase activity. Vitamin D treatment to reduce proteinuria remains controversial, although there is an inverse correlation between vitamin D levels and proteinuria. Herein, we showed that 1,25-vitamin D3–deficient 25-hydroxy-vitamin-D3-1α-hydroxylase knockout mice and 1,25-vitamin D3–deficient rats develop podocyte injury and renal dysfunction. Glomerular injury was characterized by proteinuria and partial podocyte foot process effacement. Expression of nephrin, podocin, desmin, and transient receptor potential channel C6 in the podocyte was significantly altered in 1,25-vitamin D3–deficient animals. Supplementation with 1,25-vitamin D3 or 1,25-vitamin D2 prevented podocyte effacement or reversed glomerular and tubulointerstitial damage in 1,25-vitamin D3–deficient animals, thereby preserving and restoring renal function, respectively. The effect of 1,25-vitamin D3 deficiency and 1,25-vitamin D3 and 1,25-vitamin D2 repletion on proteinuria could not be explained by hypocalcemia, changes in parathyroid hormone, or fibroblast growth factor 23. This study demonstrates that 1,25-vitamin D3 deficiency directly leads to renal injury in rodents. Translated to human subjects, this would underline the need for early vitamin D supplementation in patients with glomerular disease and chronic renal insufficiency, which might inhibit or potentially reverse renal injury."

Count Iblis (talk) 20:48, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

primary rat study, of no use to us. Alexbrn (talk) 21:13, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Serum 25-Hydroxyvitamin D Concentrations ≥40 ng/ml Are Associated with >65% Lower Cancer Risk

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0152441

Age-adjusted cancer incidence across the combined cohort (N = 2,304) was 840 cases per 100,000 person-years (1,020 per 100,000 person-years in the Lappe cohort and 722 per 100,000 person-years in the GrassrootsHealth cohort). Incidence was lower at higher concentrations of 25(OH)D. Women with 25(OH)D concentrations ≥40 ng/ml had a 67% lower risk of cancer than women with concentrations <20 ng/ml (HR = 0.33, 95% CI = 0.12–0.90)." Count Iblis (talk) 23:06, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unreliable. Alexbrn (talk) 06:22, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A PubMed search on vitamin D and cancer, limited to meta-analyses, yielded scores of articles on specific types of cancer, cancer in general, cancer mortality, etc. Any addition to the Article on the topic of cancer will need to be carefully researched and written.David notMD (talk) 02:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I attempted to add carefully weighted information on the associations of vitamin D and cancer last year. Including the reviews cited as refs 75 to 80 was the consensus along with the current wording. There are similar excellent large prospective series to the one above and systematic reviews/meta-analyses on individual cancers, but I could not find any new reputable secondary sources to justify changing the current wording. I am always in favor of a larger (scientific) section on Epidemiology of associated disorders, and making the recommendation for Health effects of supplementation separate, and subject to the best WP:MEDRS rules. Jrfw51 (talk) 20:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Taste

Vitamin D has no discernible taste (at least for me and my vitamin D gel caps), should the article mention this? Aylissa-S (talk) 06:35, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]