The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Biological fate of low-calorie sweeteners
Open accessAbstract
With continued efforts to find solutions to rising rates of obesity and diabetes, there is increased interest in the potential health benefits of the use of low- and no-calorie sweeteners (LNCSs). Concerns about safety often deter the use of LNCSs as a tool in helping control caloric intake, even though the safety of LNCS use has been affirmed by regulatory agencies worldwide. In many cases, an understanding of the biological fate of the different LNSCs can help health professionals to address safety concerns. The objectives of this review are to compare the similarities and differences in the chemistry, regulatory status, and biological fate (including absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion) of the commonly used LNCSs: acesulfame potassium, aspartame, saccharin, stevia leaf extract (steviol glycoside), and sucralose. Understanding the biological fate of the different LNCSs is helpful in evaluating whether reports of biological effects in animal studies or in humans are indicative of possible safety concerns. Illustrations of the usefulness of this information to address questions about LNCSs include discussion of systemic exposure to LNCSs, the use of sweetener combinations, and the potential for effects of LNCSs on the gut microflora.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Artificial sweeteners induce glucose intolerance by altering the gut microbiota
Suez, J., Korem, T., Zeevi, D., Zilberman-Schapira, G., Thaiss, C. A., Maza, O., Israeli, D., Zmora, N., Gilad, S., Weinberger, A., et al. (2014) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature13793 · Cited by 2,067 · cited 13×
“Furthermore, Suez et al.109 did not actually measure any parameter of gut microflora composition at any time in animals given commercial formulations of sucralose in drinking water.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialNonnutritive Sweeteners: Current Use and Health Perspectives
Gardner, C., Wylie-Rosett, J., Gidding, S. S., Steffen, L. M., Johnson, R. K., Reader, D., Lichtenstein, A. H., & on behalf of the American Heart Association Nutrition Committee of the Council on Nutrition, P. A. A. M. (2012) · Diabetes Care · doi:10.2337/dc12-9002 · Cited by 229
Cited by
Diet and the Microbiota–Gut–Brain Axis: Sowing the Seeds of Good Mental Health
Berding, K., Vlckova, K., Marx, W., Schellekens, H., Stanton, C., Clarke, G., Jacka, F., Dinan, T. G., & Cryan, J. F. (2021) · Advances in Nutrition · doi:10.1093/advances/nmaa181 · Cited by 451
Personalized microbiome-driven effects of non-nutritive sweeteners on human glucose tolerance
Suez, J., Cohen, Y., Valdés-Mas, R., Mor, U., Dori-Bachash, M., Federici, S., Zmora, N., Leshem, A., Heinemann, M., Linevsky, R., et al. (2022) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2022.07.016 · Cited by 423
The Impact of Artificial Sweeteners on Body Weight Control and Glucose Homeostasis
Pang, M. D., Goossens, G. H., & Blaak, E. E. (2021) · Frontiers in Nutrition · doi:10.3389/fnut.2020.598340 · Cited by 180
Thomson, P., Santibañez, R., Aguirre, C., Galgani, J. E., & Garrido, D. (2019) · British Journal Of Nutrition · doi:10.1017/s0007114519001570 · Cited by 117
Satiety: a gut–brain–relationship
Barakat, G. M., Ramadan, W., Assi, G., & Khoury, N. B. E. (2024) · The Journal of Physiological Sciences · doi:10.1186/s12576-024-00904-9 · Cited by 82
The Microbiome, Metabolism, and Networks in Precision Nutrition
Mensah, G. E., Maseng, M. G., Allard, S., & Gilbert, J. A. (2024) · Precision Nutrition · doi:10.1016/b978-0-443-15315-0.00011-0 · Cited by 2
Metadata
- Authors
- Magnuson, B. A., Carakostas, M. C., Moore, N. H., Poulos, S. P., & Renwick, A. G.
- Venue
- Nutrition Reviews
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2016-10-17
- Volume
- 74
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 670-689
- ISSN
- 0029-6643 (ISSN-L)
- 1753-4887
- OpenAlex
- W2534167096
- Cited by
- 334
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 14.28
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.