A Comparative <i>In Vitro</i> Toxicological Screening of a Closed-End Heated Tobacco Product *
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SUMMARY Heated tobacco products (HTPs) are a recent category of tobacco products, with their relative safety compared to cigarette smoking and potential to help smokers to quit being two reasons why regulators may consider their market approval. Designed to heat tobacco rather than to burn in order to produce aerosol, different heating techniques are applied to commercial HTPs, which may result in differing aerosol formation. Therefore, each product requires separate assessment. This work focuses on a closed-end HTP (coded as HTP-A), which is electrically heated and designed to allow puffing air flow to bypass its tobacco section, resulting in reduced oxygen concentration within the tobacco section during heating and aerosol forming. To provide a preliminary aerosol chemistry and in vitro toxicological screening, this study assessed HTP-A against a commercial electrically heated HTP (IQOS TM , coded as HTP-B) and a 3R4F reference cigarette. Under Health Canada Intense (HCI) smoking regime, the levels of 9 regulatory priority toxicants in the aerosol of HTP-A were either reduced or comparable to those in HTP-B on a per-stick basis. Additionally, both HTPs showed significant reduction (greater than 90%) in comparison to those measured in mainstream smoke of 3R4F cigarette for these toxicants. Using a set of standard in vitro toxicological assays (Ames, Micronucleus and Neutral Red Uptake), the two HTPs showed no observable responses while significant toxicity responses were recorded for 3R4F’s total particulate matter. Based on these preliminary results, the novel closed-end HTP-A design may provide similar toxicological profiles to the comparator HTP-B. Further toxicological and clinical assessments are warranted to evaluate HTP-A’s potential for exposure or disease risk reduction. [Contrib. Tob. Nicotine Res. 32 (2023) 146–156]
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".