Digestery
Everyday supplements › Vitamin D and Infections › Studies

Blood level study

Study of 576 babies: vitamin D blood levels had no consistent link to infections

Hakola and colleagues · Clinical nutrition (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 2022

Original title: Serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D and fatty acids in relation to the risk of microbial infections in children: The TRIGR Divia study.

Under review. A person has not yet checked this summary against the paper. It is written from the PubMed abstract. Until a person checks it, search engines are asked not to list this page.

What the study found

No difference

Vitamin D blood level was not consistently linked to infection risk. Higher levels showed an inverse link with rotavirus antibody levels in children with rotavirus antibodies. Omega-3 fats showed more links.

The study at a glance

Type of study
Blood level study
Who or what was studied
576 people · Babies at higher risk of type 1 diabetes, followed to 18 months
What was tested
Vitamin D blood levels at birth and 6 to 18 months vs signs of past infections in blood tests at 18 months
What it measured
The question itself: colds, flu and other respiratory infections
Who has a stake
No disclosure in PubMed
No disclosure in PubMed.
Journal
Clinical nutrition (Edinburgh, Scotland), 2022
Source
PubMed record 36368258. This page is based on the abstract only.

How much this study counts

  • –Links blood levels to health. A blood level can be a sign of illness rather than a cause.
  • •576 people.
  • ✓Measured the question itself: colds, flu and other respiratory infections.
  • •The PubMed record has no conflict-of-interest statement.
  • •Summarized from the PubMed abstract only. The full paper may hold details the abstract leaves out.

✓ Strength– Limit• Note

These points come from fixed rules about the type of study, its size and length, what it measured, and who has a stake. Every study on Digestery gets the same rules.

Where this study sits

Each dot is one on-topic paper on this question. Steps near the top answer the question more directly.

↑ Stronger evidence

  1. Trials in people: colds, flu and chest infections

    10

    2 benefit, 8 no difference

  2. Trials in people: other measures

    5

    1 benefit, 1 mixed, 2 no difference, 1 harm

  3. Trials in people: lab tests or safety

    1

    1 no difference

  4. Population studies

    1

    1 no difference

  5. Blood levels and genes

    4

    3 benefit, 1 no difference

    ↑ This study is the ringed dot

↓ Weaker evidence

  • Points to benefit
  • Mixed
  • No difference
  • No direction
  • Points to harm

How it fits with the other research

The short answer to “Does vitamin D prevent colds and infections?”

Not clearly; any effect looks small.

Confidence: low. Based on 33 on-topic papers.

Read the full answer

Of the other 3 papers on the same step: 3 benefit. This one found no difference. It differs from most of them.

  • Counted on the ladder, but not quoted in the page’s main findings.

Other papers on the same step

See all 33 studies on this question

How this page was made

Label

First read of the abstract
Claude Sonnet
Independent second read
Claude Haiku
Differences settled
The two reads differed. The reviewer checked the abstract and kept the first read. Claude Opus 5.5.
Headline
Claude Sonnet, from the checked study record. A script checked its numbers and wording.
Numbers
Checked against the abstract by a script
“How much this study counts”
Fixed rules, the same for every study
Source check by a person
Not yet. Required before search engines may list this page.

Spot an error? Email a flag with a link to your source, or use the form on the question page.