MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405073362 · doi:10.1158/1055-9965.epi-24-0836

Biomarkers of Exposure to Nicotine and Selected Toxicants in Individuals Who Use Alternative Tobacco Products Sold in Japan and Canada from 2018 to 2019

2024· article· en· W4405073362 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Liane M. Schneller, Noel J. Leigh, Thomas K Agar, Anne C K Quah, K. Michael Cummings, Geoffrey T. Fong, Richard J. O’Connor, Maciej Ł. Goniewicz

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSmoking Behavior and Cessation
Canadian institutionsOntario Institute for Cancer ResearchUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNational Cancer InstituteCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchOntario Institute for Cancer Research
KeywordsToxicantNicotineAcroleinToxicologyEnvironmental healthMedicineToxicityChemistryBiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Comparisons of nicotine and toxicant exposures between people who use different alternative tobacco products remain underexplored. METHODS: This cross-sectional, multicountry study analyzed urinary metabolites of nicotine, tobacco-specific nitrosamines [4-methylnitrosamino-1-3-pyridyl-1-butanone (NNK)], and volatile organic compounds (acrolein, acrylamide, and acrylonitrile) among established users (n = 550) in Japan and Canada. Participants exclusively or concurrently used nicotine vaping products (NVP; Canada only), heated tobacco products (HTP; Japan only), and combustible cigarettes (CC; Japan and Canada) or abstained (Japan and Canada). RESULTS: All product groups showed substantial nicotine exposure. Both HTPs and NVPs exposed exclusive users to lower toxicant levels than exclusive CC use. Canadian participants who exclusively used NVPs exhibited lower NNK and acrolein exposure but higher acrylamide exposure than Japanese participants who exclusively used HTPs. Concurrent use of CCs alongside alternative products exposed users to higher toxicant levels compared with exclusive use of either alternative product. CONCLUSIONS: Exclusive use of alternative tobacco products results in significant nicotine exposure but substantially lower toxicant exposure compared with exclusive CC use. People who use HTPs in Japan may experience higher exposure to nicotine and certain toxicants (NNK and acrolein) than people who use NVPs in Canada. Concurrent use results suggest that partially substituting CCs with alternative products may reduce toxicant exposure but to a lesser extent than completely transitioning to alternative products. IMPACT: Exposure patterns between two popular alternative tobacco products differ. The overall toxicant exposure from these products is lower than from CCs, providing critical data for regulatory decisions and public health considerations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & PreventionSame topicSmoking Behavior and CessationFrench-language works237,207