MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1974934541 · doi:10.1016/j.toxrep.2014.11.005

Differences in cadmium transfer from tobacco to cigarette smoke, compared to arsenic or lead

2014· article· en· W1974934541 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
J.-J. Piadé, Guy Jaccard, C. Dolka, Maxim Belushkin, S. Wajrock

Bibliographic record

VenueToxicology Reports · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHeavy Metal Exposure and Toxicity
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCadmiumSidestream smokeArsenicChemistryTobacco smokeSmokeEnvironmental chemistryCigarette smokeToxicologyOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Arsenic, cadmium and lead levels in tobacco filler and cigarette smoke were determined in a 568-sample worldwide survey. Median tobacco levels for arsenic, cadmium and lead were 237, 769 and 397 ng/g respectively, comparable to those previously reported albeit somewhat lower for lead and cadmium. Median mainstream smoke yields for arsenic, cadmium and lead were <3.75, 18.2, and <12.8 ng/cig. under ISO, and <8.71, 75.1 and <45.7 ng/cig. under Health Canada Intense (HCI) smoking regime respectively. In the case of cigarettes with activated carbon, a selective retention of cadmium but not lead or arsenic was observed. This effect was more pronounced under ISO than under HCI smoking regimes. Cadmium selective retention by activated carbon was confirmed by testing specially designed prototype cigarettes and the causes for this selective filtration were investigated. The differences between cadmium, arsenic and lead in terms of their speciation in tobaccos and in cigarette smoke could be related to their distribution in the ash, butt, mainstream (in gas-phase and particulate-phase) and sidestream smoke of a smoked cigarette. The possible formation of organometallic cadmium derivatives in the smoke gas-phase is discussed, the presence of which could adequately explain the observed cadmium selective filtration.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.230 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations72
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueToxicology ReportsSame topicHeavy Metal Exposure and ToxicityFrench-language works237,207