Systematic review and evaluation of aspartame carcinogenicity bioassays using quality criteria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current review assessed cancer studies of aspartame based on a quality appraisal using the Klimisch grading system. Nine studies having complete histopathology were included: three 2-year studies by Searle; three transgenic mice studies by the NTP; three lifetime studies by the Ramazzini Institute. A tenth study limited to brain tumors was not rated. None were determined as Klimisch Code 1 (reliable without restrictions). The Searle studies predated GLP standards but their methodology was comparable; transgenic mouse models are not validated, but are accepted as supporting data. These studies were rated Klimisch Code 2 (reliable with restrictions). The Ramazzini Institute used a lifetime model of their own design that has been questioned due to high rates of spontaneous tumors, issues with tumor type diagnosis and concerns about the impact of chronic infections. As many of these problems could be attributed to using animals that died or were terminated near end of life, along with the other problems noted, these studies were rated Klimisch Code 3 (not reliable). As the Klimisch Code 2 studies demonstrated a lack of carcinogenic potential, and as aspartame is hydrolyzed to common components and lacks genotoxic activity, a conclusion that aspartame is not carcinogenic is supported.
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 | 0.024 | 0.101 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".