MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in the Mainstream Smoke of Popular U.S. Cigarettes

2015· article· en· W2341338240 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
A. T. Vu, Kenneth M. Taylor, Matthew R. Holman, Yan S. Ding, Bryan Hearn, Clifford H. Watson

Bibliographic record

VenueChemical Research in Toxicology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicToxic Organic Pollutants Impact
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Food and Drug AdministrationNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsFluoranthenePhenanthrenePyreneChemistrySidestream smokeNaphthaleneEnvironmental chemistryFluoreneTobacco smokeSmokeBenzopyreneOrganic chemistryBenzo(a)pyrene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The mainstream smoke yields of 14 polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) were determined for 50 commercial U.S. cigarettes using a validated GC/MS method with the International Organization of Standardization (ISO) and Canadian Intense (CI) smoking machine regimens. PAH mainstream smoke deliveries vary widely among the commercial cigarettes with the ISO smoking regimen primarily because of differing filter ventilation. The more abundant, lower molecular weight PAHs such as naphthalene, fluorene, and phenanthrene predominantly comprise the total PAH yields. In contrast, delivery yields of high molecular weight PAHs such as benzo[b]fluoranthene, benzo[e]pyrene, benzo[k]fluoranthene, and benzo[a]pyrene (BaP) are much lower. Comparative analysis of PAHs deliveries shows brand specific differences. Correlation analysis shows strong positive associations between BaP and most of the other PAHs as well as total PAHs. The results suggest that BaP may be a representative marker for other PAH constituents in cigarette smoke generated from similarly blended tobacco, particularly those PAHs with similar molecular weights and chemical structures.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.413
Threshold uncertainty score0.391

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.271 · 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

Citations179
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChemical Research in ToxicologySame topicToxic Organic Pollutants ImpactFrench-language works237,207