Bibliographic record
Abstract
I protest the following misleading statement by Mathews-Roth (I): "Indeed, 'artificial suntan ' pills containing l3-carotene and/ or other carotenoids are marketed in Europe and Canada. How-ever, they are not approved by the US Food and Drug Admin-istration [FDA] for use in this country. This is not because of toxicity, but because ofthe sellers ' lack ofperforming the required clinical studies to obtain approval". This is deceptive and misleading because the clinical studies required by FDA are studies whose purpose is to determine whether the material is in fact toxic. For consumer safety, toxicity is presumed until proved otherwise. The American Journal a/Clinical Nutrition readership should read the article"Aplastic Anemia Associated with Canthaxanthin Ingested for 'Tanning ' Purposes " by Bluhm et al (2). These au" thors reported aplastic anemia with a fatal outcome occurring in a previously healthy young woman after she ingested can-thaxanthin, provided to her by a commercial tanning salon, for the purpose of tanning skin. Canthaxanthin is marketed as a tablet for tanning skin, under such names as Orobronze®, Darker Tan®, BronzeGlo®, and Carotinoid-N ® (25 mg {3-carotene and 35 mg canthaxanthin). Listed as "Generally Recognized as Safe" (GRAS), it is used as a food coloring and is added to animal feed to enhance the color of egg yolks and skin of chicken and flesh of rainbow trout. As Bluhm et al note (2), it can persist in the body for several months after the tablets are taken. A widely recognized adverse effect is retinopathy, but hepatitis, generalized itching, and urticaria also were reported (2). The FDA warns
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 | 0.003 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.071 | 0.047 |
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".