Evaluation of Urinary Cotinine Immunoassay Test Strips Used to Assess Smoking Status
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Validation of smoking status is a vital component for assessing self-reported smoking status. This study examined commercially available urinary cotinine immunoassay strips to evaluate their effectiveness and their reliability in validating self-reported tobacco usage. METHODS: This study compared cotinine values from urinary test strips and liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) obtained from 100 self-reported nonsmokers and 201 self-reported smokers. RESULTS: The analyzed test strips, with 100 ng/ml as the cutoff value, have 91% (84%-96% CI) specificity and 92% (86%-95% CI) sensitivity. The test strips successfully identified nonsmokers from smokers with excellent reproducibility. However, self-reported smokers have significantly different (p < .001) test strip results when compared with the expected LC-MS/MS values. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the test strip demonstrated that it discriminates nonsmokers from smokers and is an adept alternative to chromatographic methods.
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 | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".