MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2037101784 · doi:10.9721/kjfst.2011.43.6.659

Safety of Saccharin and Its Current Status of Regulation in the World

2011· article· en· W2037101784 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jeong-Weon Kim, Hyung‐Hee Baek

Bibliographic record

VenueKorean Journal of Food Science and Technology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEffects and risks of endocrine disrupting chemicals
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSaccharinInternational agencyCarcinogenPhysiologyPopulationEnvironmental healthToxicologyMedicineChemistryInternal medicineBiologyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Saccharin was reported to cause urinary bladder cancer in male rats when fed at high doses in a two-generation study, which led to a ban on the use of saccharin in Canada. However, no carcinogenic effect has been observed in other animal experiments conducted with mice, hamsters, or monkeys. Furthermore, numerous epidemiological studies have indicated that there was no relationship between saccharin consumption and the risk of bladder cancer in the human population. Sodium saccharin produces urothelial bladder tumors in rats by the formation of a urinary calcium phosphatecontaining precipitate, which is not relevant to humans because of critical interspecies difference in urine composition. Consequently, in 1999 IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer) concluded that saccharin and its salts cannot be classified as to their carcinogenicity in humans. In 2010, the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) of the United States removed saccharin from its list of hazardous substances. It is expected that the use of saccharin in foods might be expanded because saccharin is currently considered safe.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.289 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKorean Journal of Food Science and TechnologySame topicEffects and risks of endocrine disrupting chemicalsFrench-language works237,207