A 90-day dietary study with fibrillated cellulose in Sprague-Dawley rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Novel forms of fibrillated cellulose offer improved attributes for use in foods. Conventional cellulose and many of its derivatives are already widely used as food additives and are authorized as safe for use in foods in many countries. However, novel forms have not yet been thoroughly investigated using standardized testing methods. This study assesses the 90-day dietary toxicity of fibrillated cellulose, as compared to a conventional cellulose, Solka Floc. Sprague Dawley rats were fed 2 %, 3 %, or 4 % fibrillated cellulose for 90 consecutive days, and parallel Solka Floc groups were used as controls. Survival, clinical observations, body weight, food consumption, ophthalmologic evaluations, hematology, serum chemistry, urinalysis, post-mortem anatomic pathology, and histopathology were monitored and performed. No adverse observations were noted in relation to the administration of fibrillated cellulose. Under the conditions of this study and based on the toxicological endpoints evaluated, the no-observed-adverse-effect level (NOAEL) for fibrillated cellulose was 2194.2 mg/kg/day (males) and 2666.6 mg/kg/day (females), corresponding to the highest dose tested (4 %) for male and female Sprague Dawley rats. These results demonstrate that fibrillated cellulose behaves similarly to conventional cellulose and raises no safety concerns when used as a food ingredient at these concentrations.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".