Evaluation of precision and accuracy of the Borgwaldt RM20S<sup>®</sup>smoking machine designed for<i>in vitro</i>exposure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Borgwaldt RM20S(®) smoking machine enables the generation, dilution, and transfer of fresh cigarette smoke to cell exposure chambers, for in vitro analyses. We present a study confirming the precision (repeatability r, reproducibility R) and accuracy of smoke dose generated by the Borgwaldt RM20S(®) system and delivery to exposure chambers. Due to the aerosol nature of cigarette smoke, the repeatability of the dilution of the vapor phase in air was assessed by quantifying two reference standard gases: methane (CH(4), r between 29.0 and 37.0 and RSD between 2.2% and 4.5%) and carbon monoxide (CO, r between 166.8 and 235.8 and RSD between 0.7% and 3.7%). The accuracy of dilution (percent error) for CH(4) and CO was between 6.4% and 19.5% and between 5.8% and 6.4%, respectively, over a 10-1000-fold dilution range. To corroborate our findings, a small inter-laboratory study was carried out for CH(4) measurements. The combined dilution repeatability had an r between 21.3 and 46.4, R between 52.9 and 88.4, RSD between 6.3% and 17.3%, and error between 4.3% and 13.1%. Based on the particulate component of cigarette smoke (3R4F), the repeatability (RSD = 12%) of the undiluted smoke generated by the Borgwaldt RM20S(®) was assessed by quantifying solanesol using high-performance liquid chromatography with ultraviolet detection (HPLC/UV). Finally, the repeatability (r between 0.98 and 4.53 and RSD between 8.8% and 12%) of the dilution of generated smoke particulate phase was assessed by quantifying solanesol following various dilutions of cigarette smoke. The findings in this study suggest the Borgwaldt RM20S(®) smoking machine is a reliable tool to generate and deliver repeatable and reproducible doses of whole smoke to in vitro cultures.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".