Non-sugar sweeteners and cancer: Toxicological and epidemiological evidence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several toxicological and epidemiological studies were published during the last five decades on non-sugar sweeteners (NSS) and cancer. Despite the large amount of research, the issue still continues to be of interest. In this review, we provided a comprehensive quantitative review of the toxicological and epidemiological evidence on the possible relation between NSS and cancer. The toxicological section includes the evaluation of genotoxicity and carcinogenicity data for acesulfame K, advantame, aspartame, cyclamates, saccharin, steviol glycosides and sucralose. The epidemiological section includes the results of a systematic search of cohort and case-control studies. The majority of the 22 cohort studies and 46 case-control studies showed no associations. Some risks for bladder, pancreas and hematopoietic cancers found in a few studies were not confirmed in other studies. Based on the review of both the experimental data on genotoxicity or carcinogenicity of the specific NSS evaluated, and the epidemiological studies it can be concluded that there is no evidence of cancer risk associated to NSS consumption.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".