Critical review of the current literature on the safety of sucralose
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sucralose is a non-caloric high intensity sweetener that is approved globally for use in foods and beverages. This review provides an updated summary of the literature addressing the safety of use of sucralose. Studies reviewed include chemical characterization and stability, toxicokinetics in animals and humans, assessment of genotoxicity, and animal and human feeding studies. Endpoints evaluated include effects on growth, development, reproduction, neurotoxicity, immunotoxicity, carcinogenicity and overall health status. Human clinical studies investigated potential effects of repeated consumption in individuals with diabetes. Recent studies on the safety of sucralose focused on carcinogenic potential and the effect of sucralose on the gut microflora are reviewed. Following the discovery of sweet taste receptors in the gut and studies investigating the activation of these receptors by sucralose lead to numerous human clinical studies assessing the effect of sucralose on overall glycemic control. Estimated daily intakes of sucralose in different population subgroups, including recent studies on children with special dietary needs, consistently find that the intakes of sucralose in all members of the population remain well below the acceptable daily intake. Collectively, critical review of the extensive database of research demonstrates that sucralose is safe for its intended use as a non-caloric sugar alternative.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".