Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 535

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Optimal Vitamin D Status for Colorectal Cancer Prevention

Open access
Gorham, Edward D., Garland, Cedric F., Garland, Frank C., Grant, William B., Mohr, Sharif B., Lipkin, Martin, Newmark, Harold L., Giovannucci, Edward, Wei, Melissa, Holick, Michael F.·2007·American Journal of Preventive Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND Previous studies, such as the Women's Health Initiative, have shown that a low dose of vitamin D did not protect against colorectal cancer, yet a meta-analysis indicates that a higher dose may reduce its incidence. METHODS Five studies of serum 25(OH)D in association with colorectal cancer risk were identified using PubMed. The results of all five serum studies were combined using standard methods for pooled analysis. The pooled results were divided into quintiles with median 25(OH)D values of 6, 16, 22, 27, and 37 ng/mL. Odds ratios were calculated by quintile of the pooled data using Peto's Assumption-Free Method, with the lowest quintile of 25(OH)D as the reference group. A dose-response curve was plotted based on the odds for each quintile of the pooled data. Data were abstracted and analyzed in 2006. RESULTS Odds ratios for the combined serum 25(OH)D studies, from lowest to highest quintile, were 1.00, 0.82, 0.66, 0.59, and 0.46 (p(trend)<0.0001) for colorectal cancer. According to the DerSimonian-Laird test for homogeneity of pooled data, the studies were homogeneous (chi(2)=1.09, df=4, p=0.90. The pooled odds ratio for the highest quintile versus the lowest was 0.49 (p<0.0001, 95% confidence interval, 0.35-0.68). A 50% lower risk of colorectal cancer was associated with a serum 25(OH)D level > or =33 ng/mL, compared to < or =12 ng/mL. CONCLUSIONS The evidence to date suggests that daily intake of 1000-2000 IU/day of vitamin D(3) could reduce the incidence of colorectal with minimal risk.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.amepre.2006.11.004

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 5 references

Cited by

See all 535

Metadata

Authors
Gorham, E. D., Garland, C. F., Garland, F. C., Grant, W. B., Mohr, S. B., Lipkin, M., Newmark, H. L., Giovannucci, E., Wei, M., & Holick, M. F.
Venue
American Journal of Preventive Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2007-03
Volume
32
Issue
3
Pages
210-216
ISSN
0749-3797 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2007514658
Cited by
535
References
5
FWCI
41.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Optimal Vitamin D Status for Colorectal Cancer Prevention. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.amepre.2006.11.004
The paper
Gorham, E. D., Garland, C. F., Garland, F. C., Grant, W. B., Mohr, S. B., Lipkin, M., Newmark, H. L., Giovannucci, E., Wei, M., & Holick, M. F. (2007). Optimal Vitamin D Status for Colorectal Cancer Prevention. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2006.11.004

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.