Sex-related differences in serum cotinine concentrations in daily cigarette smokers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Self-reported use of cigarettes generally underestimates the true cigarette exposure of smokers. Serum cotinine is considered the best biomarker to evaluate tobacco exposure. This study determined whether or not there were any significant differences in serum cotinine concentrations between men and women when they reported smoking the same number of cigarettes per day. We analyzed cotinine and tobacco consumption data on 680 women and 840 men, aged 20 years or older, who smoked at least 100 cigarettes during their lifetime and were still actively smoking at the time of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (1999-2002). Overall, compared with men, women reported smoking fewer cigarettes per day (16.1 vs. 18.7, p<.001) and had lower serum cotinine concentrations (1163.3 nmol/L vs. 1343.9 nmol/L, p<.001). Women were more likely than men to smoke filtered (p = .018) and mentholated (p<.001) cigarettes. After adjustment for the number of cigarettes smoked per day, age, race, body mass index, poverty status, the use of either menthol or regular cigarettes, and the nicotine content in cigarettes, female compared with male smokers had lower serum cotinine concentrations (difference of 117.6 nmol/L; 95% CI = 42.6-192.6, p = .003). The difference was particularly notable in moderate to heavy smokers (i.e., those who smoked more than 15 cigarettes/day). These findings indicate that significant sex-related differences exist in serum cotinine levels among smokers, which suggests that self-reports may overestimate cigarette exposure in women compared with men.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".