Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 283

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Controversies in Vitamin D: Summary Statement From an International Conference

Open access
Giustina, Andrea, Adler, Robert A, Binkley, Neil, Bouillon, Roger, Ebeling, Peter R, Lazaretti-Castro, Marise, Marcocci, Claudio, Rizzoli, Rene, Sempos, Christopher T, Bilezikian, John P·2019·The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism

Abstract

Context: Vitamin D is classically recognized as a regulator of calcium and phosphorus metabolism. Recent advances in the measurement of vitamin D metabolites, diagnosis of vitamin D deficiency, and clinical observations have led to an appreciation that along with its role in skeletal metabolism, vitamin D may well have an important role in nonclassical settings. Measurement of the circulating form of vitamin D that best describes total body stores, namely 25-hydroxyvitamin D, can be unreliable despite many sophisticated methodologies that have been proposed and implemented. Likewise, evidence from clinical studies showing a beneficial role of vitamin D in different disease states has been controversial and at times speculative. Moreover, the target concentrations of 25-hydroxyvitamin D to address a number of putative links between vitamin D inadequacy and nonskeletal diseases are further areas of uncertainty. Setting: To address these issues, an international conference on “Controversies in Vitamin D” was held in Pisa, Italy, in June 2017. Three main topics were addressed: (i) vitamin D assays and the definition of hypovitaminosis D; (ii) skeletal and extraskeletal effects of vitamin D; (iii) therapeutics of vitamin D. Results: This report provides a summary of the deliberations of the expert panels of the conference. Conclusions: Despite great advances in our appreciation of vitamin D metabolism, measurements, biological actions on classical and nonclassical tissues, and therapeutics, all of which this report summarizes, much more work remains to be done so that our knowledge base can become even more secure.

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 · 10.1210/jc.2018-01414

Cites

6 of 6 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 6 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Giustina, A., Adler, R. A., Binkley, N., Bouillon, R., Ebeling, P. R., Lazaretti-Castro, M., Marcocci, C., Rizzoli, R., Sempos, C. T., & Bilezikian, J. P.
Venue
The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism
Published
2018-10-31
Volume
104
Issue
2
Pages
234-240
ISSN
  • 0021-972X (ISSN-L)
  • 1945-7197
OpenAlex
W2899145573
Cited by
283
References
6
FWCI
17.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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

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.