Assessing secondhand and thirdhand tobacco smoke exposure in Canadian infants using questionnaires, biomarkers, and machine learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As smoking prevalence has decreased in Canada, particularly during pregnancy and around children, and technological improvements have lowered detection limits, the use of traditional tobacco smoke biomarkers in infant populations requires re-evaluation. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated concentrations of urinary nicotine biomarkers, cotinine and trans-3'-hydroxycotinine (3HC), and questionnaire responses. We used machine learning and prediction modeling to understand sources of tobacco smoke exposure for infants from the CHILD Cohort Study. METHODS: Multivariable linear regression models, chosen through a combination of conceptual and data-driven strategies including random forest regression, assessed the ability of questionnaires to predict variation in urinary cotinine and 3HC concentrations of 2017 3-month-old infants. RESULTS: Although only 2% of mothers reported smoking prior to and throughout their pregnancy, cotinine and 3HC were detected in 76 and 89% of the infants' urine (n = 2017). Questionnaire-based models explained 31 and 41% of the variance in cotinine and 3HC levels, respectively. Observed concentrations suggest 0.25 and 0.50 ng/mL as cut-points in cotinine and 3HC to characterize SHS exposure. This cut-point suggests that 23.5% of infants had moderate or regular smoke exposure. SIGNIFICANCE: Though most people make efforts to reduce exposure to their infants, parents do not appear to consider the pervasiveness and persistence of secondhand and thirdhand smoke. More than half of the variation in urinary cotinine and 3HC in infants could not be predicted with modeling. The pervasiveness of thirdhand smoke, the potential for dermal and oral routes of nicotine exposure, along with changes in public perceptions of smoking exposure and risk warrant further exploration.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".