MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2233389235 · doi:10.2478/cttr-2013-0883

Effects of Flue-curing on Cigarette Smoke Condensates Mutagenicity

2010· article· en· W2233389235 on OpenAlexaff
A. Morin, N Poirier, David Préfontaine, M. Lacasse

Bibliographic record

VenueBeiträge zur Tabakforschung international · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCarcinogens and Genotoxicity Assessment
Canadian institutionsBritish American Tobacco (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCuring (chemistry)Curing of tobaccoChemistryTobacco smokeFlueSmokeAmes testFood scienceToxicologyCigarette smokeSalmonellaWaste managementHorticultureOrganic chemistryBiologyBacteriaPolymer chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Flue-curing is a post harvest conditioning process which strongly affects the tobacco leaf chemistry, and consequently the chemical properties of tobacco smoke. Several studies identified the major changes in tobacco chemistry occurring during flue-curing. It is not known how flue-curing contributes to changes in bioactivity of cigarette smoke condensate (CSC). In this study, tobacco leaves collected throughout the twelve days of flue-curing were used to prepare cigarettes that were smoked to generate CSC samples. The assessment of mutagenicity was performed using the Bacterial Reverse Mutation / Ames test with Salmonella typhimurium TA98 in the presence of S9 metabolic activation. CSC from cured leaves were significantly more mutagenic than CSC from uncured leaves. The number of revertants was positively influenced by the duration of the curing. The effect of the duration of curing on the number of revertants was more pronounced with increasing CSC concentration.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.735

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.251 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBeiträge zur Tabakforschung internationalSame topicCarcinogens and Genotoxicity AssessmentFrench-language works237,207