Validation of a new automatic smoking machine to study the effects of cigarette smoke in newborn lambs
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to describe the characteristics and validate the use of a new, custom-built automatic smoking machine (ASM), primarily designed to study the effects of an environmental tobacco smoke surrogate (ETS surrogate) exposure in animals of various sizes, including large animals. The equipment includes a programmable ASM coupled to a vented whole body chamber, where animals can be exposed to both mainstream and sidestream smoke. The user-friendly interface allows for full programming of puff volume (1-60 mL), time interval between two puffs (1-60 s) and between two cigarettes (1-60 min). Eight newborn lambs were exposed to either 10 (4 lambs, C10 group) or 20 (4 lambs, C20 group) cigarettes, 8 h per day for 15 days. Four additional control, lambs were exposed to air (C0 group). Weight gain was identical in all three groups of lambs. Urinary cotinine/creatinine ratio increased with the number of cigarettes smoked (C0: 11 ± 7 ng/mg; C10: 961 ± 539 ng/mg; C20: 1821 ± 312 ng/mg), with levels in the C10 and C20 groups in keeping with values published in infants exposed to ETS. Overall, results show that our new ASM is especially well suited for ETS surrogate exposure in non-restrained, non-anaesthetized large animals such as sheep.
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.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it