Validation of a new automatic smoking machine to study the effects of cigarette smoke in newborn lambs
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".