Chinchón declaration; decalogue on low- and no-calorie sweeteners (LNCS).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multidisciplinary experts in the areas of nutrition and health met in Chinchón, Madrid, on November 25-26, 2013 under the auspices of the Fundación para la Investigación Nutricional (Nutrition Research Foundation) and with the collaboration of the Madrid Regional Government's Health Ministry, the International Sweeteners Association and the Carlos III Health Institute CIBER of Physiopathology of Obesity and Nutrition. They analyzed the current status of scientific knowledge on low- and no-calorie sweeteners (LNCS) and developed a consensus Decalogue on their use; this constitutes the Chinchón Declaration. Sweeteners, including sugar, represent a subject of undeniable interest and are currently a popular topic, although areas relating to their safety and benefits remain unknown to segments of academia and the general public. The nature of LNCS makes them vulnerable to biased and even contradictory information. They are food additives that are broadly used as sugar substitutes to sweeten foods, medicines and food supplements when non-nutritional or non-caloric alternatives are needed. The Chinchón Decalogue is the outcome of a meeting for reflection and consensus by a group of experts with backgrounds in different scientific disciplines (toxicology, clinical nutrition, community nutrition, physiology, food science, public health, pediatrics, endocrinology and nutrition, nursing, pharmaceutical care and food legislation). The Decalogue includes different aspects of LNCS related to regulation, use, benefits and safety. In general, benefits of LNCS have been traditionally neglected in comparison with the tendency for emphasising unexisting or unproven possible risks. The need to strengthen research on LNCS in Spain was emphasized, as well as the need to educate both professionals and the public.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.014 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".