Deposition of cigar smoke particles in the lung: evaluation with ventilation scan using (99m)Tc-labeled sulfur colloid particles.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: This study examined the degree to which cigar smokers inhale when they smoke cigars. A second objective was to assess the level of association between self-reported inhalation and observable cigar particle deposition in the lung. We hypothesized that cigar smokers with a history of cigarette smoking would show a greater amount of smoke deposition than would cigar smokers with no history of cigarette smoking. We conjectured that self-reported cigar smoke inhalation would be a reliable predictor of observable smoke particle deposition in the lung. METHODS: Twenty-four male cigar smokers were recruited to participate in the study. Twelve of the participants were current or past regular cigarette smokers, and the remaining 12 participants had no history of cigarette smoking. The volunteers completed an anonymous questionnaire commenting on the frequency of their current cigarette and cigar use as well as the degree to which they inhale when they smoke cigars. Volunteers smoked a cigar through a holder that permitted cigar smoke to mix with a radioaerosol of (99m)Tc-labeled sulfur colloid particles. The total radioactivity administered to each volunteer was 100 MBq. Lung ventilation scanning was subsequently performed. RESULTS: Total lung counts showed that volunteers inhaled the cigar smoke to varying degrees, although 100% of nonsmokers and 58% of smokers in the study reported that they never or rarely inhaled when they smoked cigars. With respect to total lung counts, smokers as a group inhaled less than their nonsmoking counterparts; however, this difference reflected a trend in the data and did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSION: Contrary to the widely held belief that cigar smokers do not inhale when they smoke cigars, we concluded that cigar smoke is inhaled regardless of self-reported inhalation and smoking history.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".