MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2046745480 · doi:10.1080/00984100290071342

Effects of Volatile Aromatics, Aldehydes, and Phenols in Tobacco Smoke on Viability and Proliferation of Mouse Lymphocytes

2002· article· en· W2046745480 on OpenAlexaff
Martin Poirier, Michel Fournier, Pauline Brousseau, André Morin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Toxicology and Environmental Health · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCarcinogens and Genotoxicity Assessment
Canadian institutionsBritish American Tobacco (Canada)Armand Frappier MuseumBioPhage Pharma (Canada)Institut National de la Recherche Scientifique
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhenolsTobacco smokeChemistrySmokeFood scienceOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Thirteen chemicals present in tobacco smoke were assessed for their effect on viability and proliferation of mouse lymphocytes in vitro. Acetaldehyde, benzene, butyraldehyde, isoprene, styrene, and toluene produced no effect on either viability or proliferation after 3 h of exposure. Formaldehyde, catechol, acrylonitrile, propionaldehyde, and hydroquinone significantly inhibited T-lymphocyte and B-lymphocyte proliferation with IC50 values ranging from 1.19 x 10(-5) M to 8.20 x 10(-4) M after 3 h of exposure. Acrolein and crotonaldehyde not only inhibited T-cell and B-cell proliferation, but also acted on viability with IC50 values ranging from 2.06 x 10(5) M to 4.26 x 10(-5) M. Mixtures of acrolein, formaldehyde, and propionaldehyde or crotonaldehyde were tested and interactive effects at 0.5 and 1 x IC50 were observed. Two mixtures significantly inhibited T-cell proliferation when compared to the control at 0.1 x IC50 concentration. The present study shows that some chemicals known to be present in tobacco smoke exert an effect on lymphocyte viability and proliferation in vitro.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.289
Threshold uncertainty score0.283

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.239
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 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

Citations37
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Toxicology and Environmental HealthSame topicCarcinogens and Genotoxicity AssessmentFrench-language works237,207