Little Cigars, Filtered Cigars, and their Carbonyl Delivery Relative to Cigarettes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Little cigars and filtered cigars are currently growing in popularity due to their low cost and wide variety of flavors while retaining an appearance similar to cigarettes. Given the health consequences associated with cigarette use, it is important to understand the potential harm associated with these similar products. This includes the potential harm associated with carbonyls (eg, acetaldehyde, acrolein, formaldehyde, etc.), an important class of toxicants and carcinogens in tobacco smoke. Our objective was to determine the carbonyl levels in mainstream smoke from little and filtered cigars compared to cigarettes. Methods: We examined two brands each of little cigars and filtered cigars, as well as two research cigarettes for carbonyl delivery using the International Organization of Standards (ISO) and the Health Canada Intense (HCI) machine-smoking protocols. Results: On a per puff basis, the levels of five of the seven carbonyls were higher from little cigars than filtered cigars and cigarettes (ISO: 56-116%; HCI: 39-85%; p < .05). On a per unit basis, most carbonyl levels were higher from both cigar types than cigarettes using the ISO method (ISO: 51-313%; p < .05) whereas only filtered cigars were higher using the HCI method (HCI: 53-99%; p < .05). Conclusion: These findings suggest that cigar smokers can be exposed to higher levels of carbonyls per cigar than cigarette smokers per cigarette. Implications: These data will increase our understanding of the relative harm from carbonyl exposure from little and filtered cigars both for cigar-only smokers and the cumulative harm among the growing population of cigarette-cigar multi-product smokers.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".