Vitamin D2, D3, K2 and IU: what does the bottle actually mean?
What is the difference between low vitamin D, a daily requirement and an optimal level?
On this page
Vitamin D helps regulate calcium absorption and bone mineralization. Severe deficiency can cause rickets in children and osteomalacia in adults. Treating a deficiency and adding more vitamin D to an already adequate diet are different clinical questions. A blood concentration is a status measure, not a direct measure of future health.[1]
What does this actually mean?
Requirement, test result and target mean different things
A requirement concerns intake; a blood result measures vitamin-D status. An optimal level is a proposed target for a population and outcome. These are different questions.[6]
D2, D3, micrograms and IU
D2 and D3 are forms of vitamin D, not two unrelated nutrients. Both can raise vitamin-D status. Micrograms describe an amount by mass; international units describe biological activity. For vitamin D, 1 microgram equals 40 IU, so 25 micrograms and 1,000 IU describe the same amount. They are not amounts to add together when reading a single serving.[7]
K2 is a different vitamin
Vitamin K2 means a group of menaquinones, including forms named MK-4 and MK-7. It is not a more advanced type of vitamin D. Vitamins D and K have related roles in calcium and bone biology, which motivates combination research. That biological partnership does not establish that every person taking D must buy a combination bottle. Biochemical roles in bone proteins provide a rationale for research, rather than an automatic rule for every consumer.[11]
A stronger mechanism is not a fracture result
A review of combined vitamins K and D reported changes in bone mineral density in selected trials. Bone density is useful, but it is not a direct count of prevented fractures. Preparations and populations differed. A combination cannot be assumed to prevent vitamin-D excess or make a high-dose product appropriate for routine use.[12]
Testing advice depends on the situation
The Endocrine Society’s guidance does not recommend vitamin-D testing for every healthy adult. Investigating suspected deficiency or another clinical problem is different. An advertised target should not replace an assessment of the question.[3]
What to check on a bottle
Read vitamin D per serving in one unit system, the number of tablets per serving and any added ingredients. Check whether products duplicate it. If K2 is included, note that vitamin K can interact importantly with warfarin. A combined bottle does not simplify medication decisions or establish a personal target blood level.[13]
Sources, forms, and blood tests
Sources include skin production after sunlight exposure, foods and supplements. Few foods naturally contain much vitamin D; fatty fish and egg yolks are examples, and some milks, plant drinks and cereals are fortified. Fortification varies by country and product. Increasing ultraviolet exposure also carries skin-aging and skin-cancer risks.[2]
D2 and D3 can both increase vitamin D status, although D3 may raise concentrations more and for longer. The usual status test measures 25-hydroxyvitamin D. Different laboratory thresholds and clinical purposes can produce different labels of adequacy; a number should be interpreted alongside the reason for testing.[1]
Who is the guidance actually about?
The Endocrine Society’s 2024 prevention guideline concerns people without established indications for treatment or testing. It advises generally healthy adults under 75 against routine supplementation above dietary reference intakes and advises against routine screening. It makes separate, conditional suggestions for children, pregnancy, adults 75 and older, and high-risk prediabetes. These distinctions are lost in a blanket “everyone needs it” or “nobody needs it” claim.[3]
Too much, and situations requiring context
Excessive supplemental vitamin D can raise blood calcium and urinary calcium, and severe toxicity can damage kidneys or disturb heart rhythm. Combining products may unintentionally increase total intake. Kidney disease, malabsorption, specific medicines and established bone disorders can change assessment and treatment needs; a population prevention guideline does not replace that evaluation.[1]
A vitamin form, a blood marker, and a label unit are different things
| Term | What it describes | Useful distinction |
|---|---|---|
| 25(OH)D | 25-hydroxyvitamin D, the usual blood status marker. | Not the same measurement as the active-hormone test.[6] |
| 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D | An active form, also called calcitriol. | Selected kidney or calcium questions, rather than the usual adequacy test.[6] |
| Micrograms and IU | Two units used to express a vitamin D amount. | For example, NIH lists 15 micrograms as 600 IU.[7] |
| Deficiency-related bone disease | Rickets in children or osteomalacia in adults can follow severe deficiency. | Not identical to every cause of low bone density or fracture.[8] |
Test names need to stay attached to their purpose
MedlinePlus explains that most status tests measure 25-hydroxyvitamin D. A different test measures active vitamin D and can be used for selected kidney or abnormal-calcium questions. Similar names do not make the tests interchangeable, and one result should not be assigned the interpretation of another test.[6]
A unit conversion is not a treatment decision
NIH’s consumer table reports vitamin D amounts in both micrograms and international units. Fifteen micrograms and 600 IU describe the same vitamin amount, not two additions to sum. This arithmetic helps read a label; it does not choose a deficiency-treatment dose, a blood target or a regimen for a particular medical condition.[7]
Severe deficiency can cause impaired bone mineralisation. MedlinePlus describes rickets and osteomalacia separately from broader bone-density concerns. Treating a documented problem and testing every healthy person without a specific indication are different questions; a general prevention trial does not answer every deficiency-treatment question.[8]
Evidence & uncertainty
Vitamin D is essential, but more is not automatically better. Large prevention trials in generally healthy older adults found no significant reduction in fractures, invasive cancer or major cardiovascular events from the tested supplement regimen. These findings do not mean that established deficiency should go untreated.[4][5]
Selected-source overview · Independent review pendingPublished questions
What is the difference between vitamin D2 and D3?
Selected-source overview · Independent review pending. Read the evidence context.
Both are supplement forms that raise blood vitamin D. D3 may raise concentrations more and sustain them longer; that difference alone does not establish superior outcomes for every clinical purpose.[2]
Evidence behind this answer
- Vitamin D
agency explanation · 2024
Indexed primary-source passages; direct retrieval unavailable · Food and supplement sources; D2/D3; sunlight risks
This answer summarizes selected sources. An independent appraisal of the complete evidence has not been completed.
Should every healthy adult routinely test vitamin D?
Selected-source overview · Independent review pending. Read the evidence context.
The 2024 Endocrine Society prevention guideline advises against routine screening in otherwise healthy adults. This recommendation does not apply to established clinical indications such as low blood calcium.[3]
Evidence behind this answer
- Vitamin D for the Prevention of Disease
clinical guideline · 2024
Selected relevant page text or publication abstract inspected · Scope and recommendations 1–14; routine testing versus established indications
This answer summarizes selected sources. An independent appraisal of the complete evidence has not been completed.
Does vitamin D prevent fractures in all older adults?
Selected-source overview · Independent review pending. Read the evidence context.
No. VITAL did not show a significant benefit in adults not selected for deficiency or osteoporosis. That population differs from people receiving treatment for established deficiency or bone disease.[4]
Evidence behind this answer
- Supplemental Vitamin D and Incident Fractures in Midlife and Older Adults
randomized trial secondary report · 2022
Indexed primary-source passages; direct retrieval unavailable · Abstract; population; first-fracture counts, follow-up and hazard ratio
This answer summarizes selected sources. An independent appraisal of the complete evidence has not been completed.
Did VITAL show that vitamin D prevents cancer or cardiovascular events?
Selected-source overview · Independent review pending. Read the evidence context.
It did not find a significant reduction in either primary outcome. That result concerns the studied population and supplement regimen; it is not proof that vitamin D has no biological role.[5]
Evidence behind this answer
- Vitamin D Supplements and Prevention of Cancer and Cardiovascular Disease
randomized trial · 2019
Indexed primary-source passages; direct retrieval unavailable · Indexed primary abstract; population, intervention and primary outcomes
This answer summarizes selected sources. An independent appraisal of the complete evidence has not been completed.
Is extra sun exposure the only way to get vitamin D?
Selected-source overview · Independent review pending. Read the evidence context.
No. Foods, fortified products and supplements can supply vitamin D. More ultraviolet exposure also carries skin risks, so vitamin D and sun-protection decisions should be considered together.[2]
Evidence behind this answer
- Vitamin D
agency explanation · 2024
Indexed primary-source passages; direct retrieval unavailable · Food and supplement sources; D2/D3; sunlight risks
This answer summarizes selected sources. An independent appraisal of the complete evidence has not been completed.
Do vitamin D guidelines give the same advice to every age and population?
Selected-source overview · Independent review pending. Read the evidence context.
No. The 2024 prevention guideline distinguishes healthy adults under 75 from children, pregnancy, older adults and high-risk prediabetes. Established treatment indications are a separate question.[3]
Evidence behind this answer
- Vitamin D for the Prevention of Disease
clinical guideline · 2024
Selected relevant page text or publication abstract inspected · Scope and recommendations 1–14; routine testing versus established indications
This answer summarizes selected sources. An independent appraisal of the complete evidence has not been completed.
Are 25-hydroxyvitamin D and active vitamin D tests interchangeable?
Selected-source overview · Independent review pending. Read the evidence context.
No. The usual status marker and the active-form test have different purposes. The latter may investigate selected kidney or calcium problems.[6]
Evidence behind this answer
- Vitamin D Test
agency test explanation · Date not stated
Selected relevant official page passages inspected · 25(OH)D versus active vitamin D and selected testing indications
This answer summarizes selected sources. An independent appraisal of the complete evidence has not been completed.
Do 15 micrograms and 600 IU of vitamin D describe two separate doses?
Selected-source overview · Independent review pending. Read the evidence context.
No. In NIH’s table they express the same vitamin amount in different units. They should not be added together.[7]
Evidence behind this answer
- Vitamin D — Consumer
agency nutrition explanation · Date not stated
Selected relevant official page passages inspected · Microgram/IU values in the intake table
This answer summarizes selected sources. An independent appraisal of the complete evidence has not been completed.
Is osteomalacia simply another name for every case of osteoporosis?
Selected-source overview · Independent review pending. Read the evidence context.
No. Severe vitamin D deficiency can impair mineralisation and cause osteomalacia. Osteoporosis and fracture risk have a wider clinical context.[8]
Evidence behind this answer
- Vitamin D Deficiency
agency patient explanation · Date not stated
Selected relevant official page passages inspected · Severe deficiency, rickets, osteomalacia and bone-density context
This answer summarizes selected sources. An independent appraisal of the complete evidence has not been completed.
Does avoiding routine vitamin D screening forbid testing a suspected deficiency?
Selected-source overview · Independent review pending. Read the evidence context.
No. Routine screening of everyone and investigating a specified clinical concern are different situations. MedlinePlus describes targeted testing.[6]
Evidence behind this answer
- Vitamin D Test
agency test explanation · Date not stated
Selected relevant official page passages inspected · 25(OH)D versus active vitamin D and selected testing indications
This answer summarizes selected sources. An independent appraisal of the complete evidence has not been completed.
What is the difference between low vitamin D, a daily requirement and an optimal level?
Selected-source overview · Independent review pending. Read the evidence context.
A blood result describes measured vitamin-D status; a requirement concerns intake over time; an optimal level is a proposed outcome-specific target. They are not interchangeable. Routine testing is not recommended for every healthy adult, while suspected deficiency can warrant individual assessment.[6][3]
Evidence behind this answer
- Vitamin D Test
agency test explanation · Date not stated
Selected relevant official page passages inspected · 25(OH)D versus active vitamin D and selected testing indications - Vitamin D for the Prevention of Disease
clinical guideline · 2024
Selected relevant page text or publication abstract inspected · Scope and recommendations 1–14; routine testing versus established indications
This answer summarizes selected sources. An independent appraisal of the complete evidence has not been completed.
Is K2 another form of vitamin D?
Selected-source overview · Independent review pending. Read the evidence context.
No. K2 is a family of vitamin-K compounds. Related bone biology motivates combination research, but does not prove that everyone needs D plus K2 or that K2 prevents vitamin-D toxicity. Vitamin K can also interact with warfarin.[11]
Evidence behind this answer
- The Importance of Vitamin K and the Combination of Vitamins K and D for Calcium Metabolism and Bone Health: A Review
review · 2024
Original indexed abstract inspected; full text not retrieved · Abstract on phylloquinone, menaquinones and combined vitamin biology
This answer summarizes selected sources. An independent appraisal of the complete evidence has not been completed.
Can different vitamin D test methods contribute to an unexpected change in my result?
Selected-source overview · Independent review pending. Read the evidence context.
Yes. A same-sample assay comparison found method-dependent bias, including different responses to D2-rich samples. That is one possible contributor, not proof of the cause in a particular person; review the actual reports and clinical context.[14]
Evidence behind this answer
- Vitamin D Standardization Program (VDSP) intralaboratory study for the assessment of 25-hydroxyvitamin D assay variability and bias
original laboratory comparison · 2021
Original abstract and NIST author publication record inspected; PMC full text was challenged. No numerical assay ranking reproduced. · Original abstract: single-donor sera, reference procedures, method-dependent bias and high-25(OH)D2 samples; competing-interest statement
This answer summarizes selected sources. An independent appraisal of the complete evidence has not been completed.
Is aiming for a higher vitamin D blood level necessarily better for balance and falls?
Selected-source overview · Independent review pending. Read the evidence context.
No. In selected older adults with a prior fall, higher monthly regimens raised the blood marker without better lower-limb function, and secondary fall outcomes were less favorable. This does not choose a blood target or replacement plan.[15]
Evidence behind this answer
- Monthly High-Dose Vitamin D Treatment for the Prevention of Functional Decline: A Randomized Clinical Trial
original randomized trial · 2016
Selected original publisher full-text passages and PubMed record inspected; not a complete independent risk-of-bias appraisal. · Abstract; trial population; Results; Statistical Analysis secondary/exploratory outcome cautions; Discussion; conflicts of interest
This answer summarizes selected sources. An independent appraisal of the complete evidence has not been completed.
Selected-study outcomes
These views show selected findings from abstracts, publication records or selected full-text passages. Access is stated for each record. Complete synthesis and independent appraisal remain pending.
Selected study · review incomplete
Vitamin D and diabetes prevention
The primary risk reduction was uncertain.[9]
Not selected for deficiency; this is not a trial of treating documented deficiency.
- Population
- 2,423 adults meeting at least two prediabetes criteria
- Intervention/exposure
- Vitamin D3 4,000 IU/day
- Comparison
- Placebo
- Follow-up
- Median 2.5 years
- Setting
- US multicentre D2d
| Measure | Reported result |
|---|---|
| Hazard ratio | 0.88; 95% CI 0.75–1.04; p 0.12 |
| intervention rate | 9.39 cases per 100 person years |
| comparator rate | 10.66 cases per 100 person years |
| Intervention counts | 293/1211 |
| Comparison counts | 323/1212 |
Harms: Overall adverse-event incidence did not clearly differ.
Stated population/comparison only.
Extraction details
Access: Original-study abstract in authors’ institutional repositories plus indexed primary results
Funding: Not extracted.
Conflicts: Not extracted.
Query: "Vitamin D Supplementation and Prevention of Type 2 Diabetes" "293"
Certainty ungraded. Appraisal and qualified review pending.
Selected study · review incomplete
Vitamin D and depression prevention
Vitamin D did not clearly prevent the primary depressive outcome.[10]
Prevention population; treatment of current depression or deficiency was not tested.
- Population
- 18,353 adults aged ≥50 without relevant depressive symptoms
- Intervention/exposure
- Vitamin D3 2,000 IU/day
- Comparison
- Matching placebo
- Follow-up
- Median 5.3 years
- Setting
- US VITAL-DEP
| Measure | Reported result |
|---|---|
| Hazard ratio | 0.97; 95% CI 0.87–1.09; p 0.62 |
| intervention rate | 12.9 events per 1000 person years |
| comparator rate | 13.3 events per 1000 person years |
| Intervention counts | 609/9181 |
| Comparison counts | 625/9172 |
Harms: Not extracted.
Stated population/comparison only.
Extraction details
Access: Indexed primary abstract and disclosures
Funding: Not extracted.
Conflicts: Author disclosures included supplement-company relationships; individual details require appraisal.
Query: site:pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov "Effect of Long-term Vitamin D3"
Certainty ungraded. Appraisal and qualified review pending.
What the major trials found
The VITAL fracture analysis randomized vitamin D3 or placebo in 25,871 US adults and followed them for a median 5.3 years. Participants were not selected for deficiency, low bone mass or osteoporosis. First fractures occurred in 769/12,927 versus 782/12,944 participants; the hazard ratio was 0.98, with a 95% confidence interval of 0.89–1.08. It did not demonstrate a meaningful fracture-prevention benefit in that studied setting.[4]
VITAL’s main vitamin D comparison also found no significant reduction in its primary invasive-cancer or major-cardiovascular-event outcomes. The fracture analysis and main report involve the same trial, not two independent populations. This distinction matters when several papers appear to multiply the evidence for one conclusion.[5]
A status result also depends on the measurement method
The Vitamin D Standardization Program compared assays using the same 50 donor-serum samples in one laboratory. Results showed method-dependent bias; some immunoassays responded differently to samples rich in the D2-derived marker. A change between methods is therefore not automatically an equal biological change. The study does not rank every current laboratory or explain an individual discrepancy. Keep the test name, units and laboratory information available when discussing an unexpected result.[14]
A higher achieved concentration did not guarantee better function
A one-year trial randomized 200 adults aged 70 or older with a previous fall to three monthly vitamin-D regimens. Higher-dose groups more often reached the study’s blood-level threshold, but did not improve lower-limb function more than the lower-dose group. Falls were also more frequent in the higher-dose groups. Falls were secondary outcomes, and the authors cautioned about multiple testing and chance. This was not a daily-versus-monthly comparison or a personal target-setting study.[15]
How these sources are connected
Reference counts do not count independent studies. Known relationships in this article:
- VITAL trial reports: These reports reuse participants from the same factorial trial. Different outcomes or interventions do not make them independent trial populations.[4][5]
These are selected documented relationships, not a complete audit of overlap among all cited studies.
References
- Vitamin D — Health Professional Fact Sheet
Agency evidence summary
NIH Office of Dietary Supplements · Content/publication date: 2025
Accessed: 2026-10-06 UTC · Indexed primary-source passages inspected
Cited sections: Function, deficiency, forms, status assessment and toxicity - Vitamin D
Agency explanation
MedlinePlus; National Library of Medicine · Content/publication date: 2024
Accessed: 2026-10-06 UTC · Indexed primary-source passages; direct retrieval unavailable
Cited sections: Food and supplement sources; D2/D3; sunlight risks - Vitamin D for the Prevention of Disease
Clinical guideline
Endocrine Society · Content/publication date: 2024
Accessed: 2026-10-06 UTC · Selected relevant page text or publication abstract inspected
Cited sections: Scope and recommendations 1–14; routine testing versus established indications - Supplemental Vitamin D and Incident Fractures in Midlife and Older Adults
Randomized trial secondary report
LeBoff MS and colleagues · Content/publication date: 2022
Accessed: 2026-10-06 UTC · Indexed primary-source passages; direct retrieval unavailable
Cited sections: Abstract; population; first-fracture counts, follow-up and hazard ratioAncillary fracture analysis within VITAL, not a separate independent trial.
- Vitamin D Supplements and Prevention of Cancer and Cardiovascular Disease
Randomized trial
Manson JE and colleagues · Content/publication date: 2019
Accessed: 2026-10-06 UTC · Indexed primary-source passages; direct retrieval unavailable
Cited sections: Indexed primary abstract; population, intervention and primary outcomesVITAL; shares participants with the fracture report. Online publication 2018; journal issue 2019.
- Vitamin D Test
Agency test explanation
MedlinePlus / National Library of Medicine · Content/publication date: not stated
Accessed: 2026-10-07 UTC · Selected relevant official page passages inspected
Cited sections: 25(OH)D versus active vitamin D and selected testing indications - Vitamin D — Consumer
Agency nutrition explanation
NIH Office of Dietary Supplements · Content/publication date: not stated
Accessed: 2026-10-07 UTC · Selected relevant official page passages inspected
Cited sections: Microgram/IU values in the intake tableUnit example only; population recommendations do not select a therapeutic dose.
- Vitamin D Deficiency
Agency patient explanation
MedlinePlus / National Library of Medicine · Content/publication date: not stated
Accessed: 2026-10-07 UTC · Selected relevant official page passages inspected
Cited sections: Severe deficiency, rickets, osteomalacia and bone-density context - Vitamin D and diabetes prevention
Randomized controlled trial
Pittas AG and colleagues · Content/publication date: 2019
Accessed: 2026-10-14 UTC · Original-study abstract in authors’ institutional repositories plus indexed primary results
Cited sections: Abstract: Methods/ResultsExtraction; independent review pending.
- Vitamin D and depression prevention
Randomized controlled trial
Okereke OI and colleagues · Content/publication date: 2020
Accessed: 2026-10-14 UTC · Indexed primary abstract and disclosures
Cited sections: Abstract: Design/Intervention/Results; DisclosuresExtraction; independent review pending.
- The Importance of Vitamin K and the Combination of Vitamins K and D for Calcium Metabolism and Bone Health: A Review
Review
Original publication authors · Content/publication date: 2024
Accessed: 2026-10-15 UTC · Original indexed abstract inspected; full text not retrieved
Cited sections: Abstract on phylloquinone, menaquinones and combined vitamin biologySelected evidence; outcome and population boundaries apply.
- The combination effect of vitamin K and vitamin D on human bone quality: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Systematic review
Original publication authors · Content/publication date: 2020
Accessed: 2026-10-15 UTC · Original indexed abstract inspected; full text not retrieved
Cited sections: Abstract Methods and Findings; eight trials and bone-density endpointSelected evidence; outcome and population boundaries apply.
- Vitamin K: Fact Sheet for Consumers
Official guidance
NIH Office of Dietary Supplements · Content/publication date: not stated
Accessed: 2026-10-15 UTC · Original indexed guidance excerpt inspected; direct HTML retrieval failed
Cited sections: Interactions with medications: warfarinSelected evidence; outcome and population boundaries apply.
- Vitamin D Standardization Program (VDSP) intralaboratory study for the assessment of 25-hydroxyvitamin D assay variability and bias
Original laboratory comparison
Wise SA and colleagues · Content/publication date: 2021
Accessed: 2026-10-20 UTC · Original abstract and NIST author publication record inspected; PMC full text was challenged. No numerical assay ranking reproduced.
Cited sections: Original abstract: single-donor sera, reference procedures, method-dependent bias and high-25(OH)D2 samples; competing-interest statementLaboratory comparison; not a clinical threshold recommendation.
- Monthly High-Dose Vitamin D Treatment for the Prevention of Functional Decline: A Randomized Clinical Trial
Original randomized trial
Bischoff-Ferrari HA and colleagues · Content/publication date: 2016
Accessed: 2026-10-20 UTC · Selected original publisher full-text passages and PubMed record inspected; not a complete independent risk-of-bias appraisal.
Cited sections: Abstract; trial population; Results; Statistical Analysis secondary/exploratory outcome cautions; Discussion; conflicts of interestSecondary falls outcome; limited population and regimen.
Scope & review
- Population
- General dietary health and selected generally healthy midlife/older adults; guideline-specific subgroups
- Exposure or intervention
- Dietary, skin-produced and supplemental vitamin D; routine testing
- Comparison
- Placebo and no routine testing
- Outcomes
- Bone health, fractures, cancer, cardiovascular events, toxicity
- Timeframe
- VITAL median 5.3 years; 2024 prevention guideline
- Jurisdiction
- US dietary references and international professional guideline; local care varies
Targeted educational explanation from selected official sources and primary publications. Not an exhaustive systematic review, individualized treatment plan, or qualified medical signoff. The edition 3.7 source check applies to selected additions; older references retain their individual access dates.
Sources checked on their individual access dates. Selected sources were checked; ongoing surveillance and qualified review have separate statuses on the coverage page.
Revision history
- 2026-10-06 UTC: Added definitions, distinctions, research context, harms, population limits and sourced answers. Qualified review remains pending.
- 2026-10-07 UTC: Edition 3.7: added definitions, product distinctions and sourced questions; existing anchors and source-access dates preserved. Qualified review remains pending.
- 2026-10-15 UTC: Added the plain-English series explanation with definitions, distinctions, practical questions and selected primary sources; qualified review remains pending.
- 2026-10-20 UTC: Selected depth1 source-based additions appended; earlier prose, IDs and source access dates retained. Qualified review remains pending.
What this article still leaves open
- Deficiency treatment and monitoring in kidney disease or malabsorption.
- Outcome-specific benefits in underrepresented populations and differing regimens.
- Independent comparisons of diagnostic thresholds, assay performance and condition-specific treatment outcomes.
Suggest a correction
Submit a content correction to the editorial queue, or download a local note. Leave out personal medical details. Submitted text is stored privately with a browser receipt session and is visible to this browser and the editor. Clearing cookies removes access to your submission history. This is not an account or a medical service.
Your submitted corrections for this article
More in the plain-English series
Keep making sense of it.
Explore Supplements explanations See every explanationExplore the topic map
Browse the health domains connected to this article. The map also identifies topics whose articles remain unwritten.