MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2038315717 · doi:10.1016/j.yrtph.2013.12.009

Investigating predictability of in vitro toxicological assessments of cigarettes: Analysis of 7years of regulatory submissions to Canadian regulatory authorities

2014· article· en· W2038315717 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Maxim Belushkin, Jean-Jacques Piadé, Sandy Chapman, Gy. Rakovszkyné Fazekas

Bibliographic record

VenueRegulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCarcinogens and Genotoxicity Assessment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSidestream smokePredictabilityIn vitro toxicologyIn vitroTobacco productToxicologyCigarette smokeRisk analysis (engineering)BiotechnologyComputer scienceBiologyEnvironmental healthMedicineStatisticsMathematicsBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A wealth of in vitro toxicological information on different types of tobaccos and tobacco products has been acquired and published, although the link between in vitro data and impact on human health remains elusive. The present study investigates the possibility of establishing quantitative models for the in vitro toxicological endpoint responses to cigarette smoke. To this end, it relies on information submitted to Canadian health authorities during the period 2006-2012. To our knowledge, this is the first time that published results concerning the influence of such factors as cigarette blend, diameter and filter type on in vitro toxicity are confirmed at the level of a representative range of products on a market. Taking these cigarette design features into account and adding a limited amount of quantitative mainstream smoke composition information, it is shown that, within the boundaries of the considered cigarette design parameters, the in vitro toxicological response can be effectively predicted. In vitro tests of tobacco products are an invaluable initial comparative product assessment tool. The present results reveal the limited value of data from repeated tests on products which do not undergo significant modifications.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.340
Threshold uncertainty score0.974

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations10
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRegulatory Toxicology and PharmacologySame topicCarcinogens and Genotoxicity AssessmentFrench-language works237,207