Risk Assessment Paradigm for Glutamate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Re-evaluation of the use of glutamic acid and glutamate salts (referred to as glutamate hereafter) by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) proposed a group acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 30 mg/kg body weight (bw)/day. SUMMARY: This ADI is below the normal dietary intake, while even intake of free glutamate by breast-fed babies can be above this ADI. In addition, the pre-natal developmental toxicity study selected by EFSA, has never been used by regulatory authorities worldwide for the safety assessment of glutamate despite it being available for nearly 40 years. Also, the EFSA ignored that toxicokinetic data provide support for eliminating the use of an uncertainty factor for interspecies differences in kinetics. Key Messages: A 3-generation reproductive toxicity study in mice that includes extensive brain histopathology, provides a better point of departure showing no effects up to the highest dose tested of 6,000 mg/kg bw/day. Furthermore, kinetic data support use of a compound-specific uncertainty factor of 25 instead of 100. Thus, an ADI of at least 240 mg/kg bw/day would be indicated. In fact, there is no compelling evidence to indicate that the previous ADI of "not specified" warrants any change.
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 | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
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".