Loading
Life sciences · Journal article
International Journal of Molecular Sciences · September 15, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Journal article.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
The implication of vitamin D in the pathophysiology of depression has generated interest regarding its role as a biomarker in the context of mental health. Given the limited data on this association in the Romanian population, the present study aimed to evaluate the correlation between vitamin D status and the severity of depressive symptomatology in a sample of adult patients from Romania. This cross-sectional study was conducted on 90 patients diagnosed with major depressive disorder who were admitted to the Department of Psychiatry at the County Clinical Emergency Hospital of Bihor during the period of 2024–2025. Serum vitamin D concentrations were determined by measuring the 25-hydroxyvitamin D metabolite in blood using the chemiluminescence microparticle immunoassay method. The severity of depressive symptomatology was quantified using two validated scales: the Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II) and the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale 17 (HAM-D17). Multivariable linear regression and ordered probit regression were used to assess the relationship between vitamin D status and depression severity, with adjustments for relevant covariates. A statistically significant negative association was identified for the BDI-II scale (B = −0.3170444, β = −0.2621328, p = 0.007) and the HAM-D17 scale (B = −0.1495026, β = −0.2829461, p = 0.002), which remained robust after adjustment for covariates (BDI-II: B = −0.2110473, β = −0.1744942, p = 0.050; HAMD17: B = −0.1153659, β = −0.2183397, p = 0.018). In comparison with subjects with vitamin D deficiency, those with sufficient levels presented a significantly lower probability of belonging to higher severity categories of depression for both scales (BDI-II: coefficient = −0.6855429, p = 0.004; HAM-D17: coefficient = −0.7029572, p = 0.005). The study highlighted a statistically significant negative correlation between vitamin D status and depression severity, which remained after adjustment for covariates. Sufficient vitamin D levels were associated with a significantly lower probability of belonging to a higher depression severity category compared with deficiency.