A Study of Artificial Sweeteners and Thyroid Cancer Risk
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In recent decades, data from certain observational studies have stirred controversy over artificial sweeteners by linking them with certain malignancies. As the incidences of artificial sweetener consumption and thyroid cancer are both increasing, our study aimed to determine any possible association between them. METHODS: This retrospective observational study enrolled 50 patients (group 1) with proven diagnosis of well-differentiated thyroid cancer (WDTC) and 50 control subjects (group 2) diagnosed as having benign thyroid nodule by fine-needle aspiration. The survey questionnaire included the total amount and duration of intake of artificial sweeteners. RESULTS: Increased consumption of artificial sweeteners was noted in group 1 as compared to group 2, which was statistically significant (76% vs. 24%, P < 0.01). This study suggested that the use of an average of four packets (4 g) per day of artificial sweetener for an average duration of 5 years is associated with WDTC. CONCLUSIONS: Our study emphasizes the significance of artificial sweetener consumption as a potential risk factor for WDTC and increase in public awareness regarding this association if other studies in future report similar findings.
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 | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".