Last data update: May 06, 2024. (Total: 46732 publications since 2009)
Records 1-3 (of 3 Records) |
Query Trace: Holiday DB[original query] |
---|
Comparison of digital with film radiographs for the classification of pneumoconiotic pleural abnormalities
Larson TC , Holiday DB , Antao VC , Thomas J , Pinheiro G , Kapil V , Franzblau A . Acad Radiol 2011 19 (2) 131-40 RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Analog film radiographs are typically used to classify pneumoconiosis to allow comparison with standard film radiographs. The aim of this study was to determine if digital radiography is comparable to film for the purpose of classifying pneumoconiotic pleural abnormalities. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Subjects were 200 asbestos-exposed patients, from whom digital and film chest radiographs were obtained along with chest high-resolution computed tomographic scans. Using a crossover design, radiographs were independently read on two occasions by seven readers, using conventional International Labour Organization standards for film and digitized standards for digital. High-resolution computed tomographic scans were read independently by three readers. Areas under the receiver-operating characteristic curves were calculated using high-resolution computed tomographic ratings as the gold standard for disease status. Mixed linear models were fit to estimate the effects of order of presentation, occasion, and modality, treating the seven readers as a random effect. Comparing digital and film radiography for each reader and occasion, crude agreement and agreement beyond chance (kappa) were also calculated. RESULTS: The linear models showed no statistically significant sequence effect for order of presentation (P = .73) or occasion (P = .28). Most important, the difference between modalities was not statistically significant (digital vs film, P = .54). The mean area under the curve for film was 0.736 and increased slightly to 0.741 for digital. Mean crude agreement for the presence of pleural abnormalities consistent with pneumoconiosis across all readers and occasions was 78.3%, while the mean kappa value was 0.49. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that digital radiography is not statistically different from analog film for the purpose of classifying pneumoconiotic pleural abnormalities, when appropriate standards are used. |
Comparison of serum cotinine concentration within and across smokers of menthol and nonmenthol cigarette brands among non-Hispanic black and non-Hispanic white U.S. adult smokers, 2001-2006
Caraballo RS , Holiday DB , Stellman SD , Mowery PD , Giovino GA , Muscat JE , Eriksen MP , Bernert JT , Richter PA , Kozlowski LT . Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2011 20 (7) 1329-40 BACKGROUND: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is examining options for regulating menthol content in cigarettes. There are many pharmacologic properties of menthol that may facilitate exposure to tobacco smoke, and it has been suggested that the preference for menthol cigarettes in black smokers accounts for their higher cotinine levels. OBJECTIVE: To assess cigarette per day (cpd)-adjusted cotinine levels in relation to smoking a menthol or nonmenthol cigarette brand among non-Hispanic black and white U.S. adult smokers under natural smoking conditions. METHOD: Serum cotinine concentrations were measured in 1,943 smokers participating in the 2001 to 2006 National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES). The effect of smoking a menthol brand on cpd-adjusted serum cotinine levels in these two populations was modeled by adjusting for sex, age, number of smokers living in the home, body weight, time since last smoked, and FTC-measured nicotine levels. The 8 or 12 digit Universal Product Code (UPC) on the cigarette label was used to determine the cigarette brand and whether it was menthol. RESULTS: Smoking a menthol cigarette brand versus smoking a nonmenthol cigarette brand was not associated (p≥0.05) with mean serum cotinine concentration in either black or white smokers. CONCLUSIONS: The higher levels of cotinine observed in black smokers compared to white smokers is not explained by their higher preference for menthol cigarette brands. IMPACT: Further studies like ours are needed to improve our ability to understand health consequences of future changes in tobacco product design. |
Interlaboratory comparability of serum cotinine measurements at smoker and nonsmoker concentration levels: a round-robin study
Bernert JT , Jacob P 3rd , Holiday DB , Benowitz NL , Sosnoff CS , Doig MV , Feyerabend C , Aldous KM , Sharifi M , Kellogg MD , Langman LJ . Nicotine Tob Res 2009 11 (12) 1458-1466 INTRODUCTION: Cotinine, the primary proximate metabolite of nicotine, is commonly measured as an index of exposure to tobacco in both active users of tobacco and nonsmokers with possible exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS). A number of laboratories have implemented analyses for measuring serum cotinine in recent years, but there have been few interlaboratory comparisons of the results. Among nonsmokers exposed to SHS, the concentration of cotinine in blood can be quite low, and extensive variability in these measurements has been reported in the past. METHODS: In this study, a group of seven laboratories, all experienced in serum cotinine analysis, measured eight coded serum pools with concentrations ranging from background levels of about 0.05 ng/ml to relatively high concentrations in the active smokers range. All laboratories used either gas-liquid chromatography with nitrogen-phosphorus detection or liquid chromatography with mass spectrometric detection. RESULTS: All seven laboratories reliably measured the cotinine concentrations in samples that were within the range of their methods. In each case, the results for the pools were correctly ranked in order, and no significant interlaboratory bias was observed at the 5% level of significance for results from any of the pools. DISCUSSION: We conclude that present methods of chromatographic analysis of serum cotinine, as used by these experienced laboratories, are capable of providing accurate and precise results in both the smoker and the nonsmoker concentration range. |
- Page last reviewed:Feb 1, 2024
- Page last updated:May 06, 2024
- Content source:
- Powered by CDC PHGKB Infrastructure