The effect of the artificial sweeteners on glucose metabolism in healthy adults: a randomized, double-blinded, crossover clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to determine the effect of pure forms of sucralose and aspartame, in doses reflective of common consumption, on glucose metabolism. Healthy participants consumed pure forms of a non-nutritive sweetener (NNS) that were mixed with water and standardized to doses of 14% (0.425 g) of the acceptable daily intake (ADI) for aspartame and 20% (0.136 g) of the ADI for sucralose every day for 2 weeks. Blood samples were collected and analyzed for glucose, insulin, active glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1), and leptin. Seventeen participants (10 females and 7 males; age, 24 ± 6.8 years; body mass index, 22.9 ± 2.5 kg/m 2 ) participated in the study. The total area under the curve values of glucose, insulin, active GLP-1 and leptin were similar for the aspartame and sucralose treatment groups compared with the baseline values in healthy participants. There was no change in insulin sensitivity after NNS treatment compared with the baseline values. These findings suggest that daily repeated consumption of pure sucralose or aspartame for 2 weeks had no effect on glucose metabolism among normoglycaemic adults. However, these results need to be tested in studies with longer durations. Novelty Daily consumption of pure aspartame or sucralose for 2 weeks had no effect on glucose metabolism. Daily consumption of pure aspartame or sucralose for 2 weeks had no effect on insulin sensitivity among healthy adults.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".