Mutagenicity of smoke condensates from Canadian cigarettes with different design features
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is currently limited knowledge regarding the impact of different cigarette designs on the toxicological properties of cigarette smoke condensate (CSC). This study used the Salmonella Mutagenicity Assay to examine the mutagenic activity of mainstream CSCs from 11 commercial Canadian cigarette brands with different design features or tobacco blend. The brands were selected to include design features that are common for cigarettes sold in the Canadian market, as well as cigarettes with alternate filters (charcoal or MicroBlue™), the super slim design, and cigarettes containing mixed blends of different tobacco types. CSCs were obtained using the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and Health Canada Intense (HCI) smoking regimes, and mutagenic activity was assessed using Salmonella strains TA98, YG1041 and YG5185. Comparisons of the commercial brands to the Kentucky 3R4F, the Canadian Monitor 8 reference and a Canadian best seller revealed no significant reduction in CSC mutagenicity for cigarettes with alternate filters. However, the super slim design did afford some reduction in mutagenic potency. Nevertheless, since the study did not attempt to evaluate the impact of the cigarette designs on human health at the individual or population level, the super slim cigarettes cannot be considered 'reduced-harm' cigarettes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".