Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25831243›Full record

ReviewGut microbes2015

Non-caloric artificial sweeteners and the microbiome: findings and challenges.

Jotham Suez, Tal Korem, Gili Zilberman-Schapira, Eran Segal, Eran Elinav

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Gut microbes, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 96 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
96citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

96 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Engineering ofCurrent research in food science · 2026
    Article
  8. Not all ultra-processed foods are created equal: a review.BMJ nutrition, prevention & health · 2026
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Is there an "optimal" diet for prevention of inflammatory bowel disease?JGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2024
    Review
  20. Article

36 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Jotham Sueza Department of Immunology ; Weizmann Institute of Science ; Rehovot , Israel.
Tal Korem
Gili Zilberman-Schapira
Eran Segal
Eran Elinav

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Non-caloric artificial sweeteners (NAS) are common food supplements consumed by millions worldwide as means of combating weight gain and diabetes, by retaining sweet taste without increasing caloric intake. While they are considered safe, there is increasing controversy regarding their potential ability to promote metabolic derangements in some humans. We recently demonstrated that NAS consumption could induce glucose intolerance in mice and distinct human subsets, by functionally altering the gut microbiome. In this commentary, we discuss these findings in the context of previous and recent works demonstrating the effects of NAS on host health and the microbiome, and the challenges and open questions that need to be addressed in understanding the effects of NAS consumption on human health.

Indexed as

AnimalsDietGastrointestinal MicrobiomeGlucose IntoleranceHumansMiceSweetening AgentsSweetening Agentsartificial sweetenersdiabetesglucose intoleranceMicrobiome

Identifiers

PMID25831243
PMCPMC4615743

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.