A 12-week randomized clinical trial investigating the potential for sucralose to affect glucose homeostasis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The discovery of gut sweet taste receptors has led to speculations that non-nutritive sweeteners, including sucralose, may affect glucose control. A double-blind, parallel, randomized clinical trial, reported here and previously submitted to regulatory agencies, helps to clarify the role of sucralose in this regard. This was primarily an out-patient study, with 4-week screening, 12-week test, and 4-week follow-up phases. Normoglycemic male volunteers (47) consumed ∼333.3 mg encapsulated sucralose or placebo 3x/day at mealtimes. HbA1c, fasting glucose, insulin, and C-peptide were measured weekly. OGTTs were conducted in-clinic overnight, following overnight fasting twice during screening phase, twice during test phase, and once at follow-up. Throughout the study, glucose, insulin, C-peptide and HbA1c levels were within normal range. No statistically significant differences between sucralose and placebo groups in change from baseline for fasting glucose, insulin, C-peptide and HbA1c, no clinically meaningful differences in time to peak levels or return towards basal levels in OGTTs, and no treatment group differences in mean glucose, insulin, or C-peptide AUC change from baseline were observed. The results of other relevant clinical trials and studies of gastrointestinal sweet taste receptors are compared to these findings. The collective evidence supports that sucralose has no effect on glycemic control.
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".