Cigarillos v Cigarettes In Vitro Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There has been limited toxicity testing of cigarillos, including comparison to cigarettes. The present study compared the smoke chemistry and the cytotoxic and genotoxic potential of ten conventional cigarettes and ten cigarillos based on the greatest market share. Whole smoke and total particulate matter (TPM) were generated using the Canadian Intense (CI) and International Organization for Standardization (ISO) puffing protocols. Tobacco specific nitrosamines (TSNAs), carbonyls, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) were measured using GC-MS. TPM smoke extracts were used for the in vitro assays. Cytotoxicity was assessed in HBEC4 cells using the neutral red uptake assay. Genotoxic potential was assessed using the micronucleus (MN; A549 cells), Ames, and thymidine kinase (TK) assays. TPM from all cigarillos tested was more cytotoxic than cigarettes. MN formation was significantly greater for cigarillos compared to cigarettes at the highest dose of TPM, with or without rat liver S9 fraction. In the Ames test +S9, both tobacco products exhibited significant dose-dependent increases in mutation frequency (MF), indicating metabolic activation is required for genotoxicity. In the TK assay +S9, cigarillos showed a significantly enhanced MF although both tobacco products were positive. The levels of all measured PAHs, TSNAs, and carbonyls (except acrolein) were significantly greater in cigarillos than cigarettes. The CI puffing protocol demonstrated increased smoke constituent levels compared to ISO. Even though the gas vapor phase was not tested, the results of this study showed that under the tested conditions the investigated cigarillos showed greater toxicity than comparator cigarettes.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.004 |
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".