Literature DB >> 31953760

Estimates of cutoffs with specificities and sensitivities for urine cotinine and hydroxycotinine for US adults aged ≥ 20 years to classify smokers and nonsmokers.

Ram Baboo Jain1.   

Abstract

Data for urine cotinine and hydroxycotinine became available for the first time in the 2013-2014 cycle of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey administered by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Cutoffs to classify smokers and nonsmokers for both cotinine and hydroxycotinine for US adults aged ≥ 20 years were developed by using receiver operating characteristic curve methodology. The optimality criterion used to determine cutoffs simultaneously maximized both specificity and sensitivity. Cutoffs were determined for the total population, males, females, non-Hispanic whites, non-Hispanic blacks, Hispanics, and non-Hispanic Asians. Cutoffs for both cotinine and hydroxycotinine were determined with a minimum sensitivity of 95.5% and with a minimum specificity of 95.4%. For the total population, cutoff for urine cotinine was 91.7 ng/mL estimated with a specificity as well as a sensitivity of 97.1%. The cutoff for the total population for urine hydroxycotinine was 128.0 ng/mL estimated with a specificity as well as a sensitivity of 96.5%. The order in which cutoffs were observed for cotinine was non-Hispanic blacks (283.0 ng/mL) > non-Hispanic whites (111.0 ng/mL) > males (109.0 ng/mL) > females (91.7 ng/mL) > total population (91.7 ng/mL) > Hispanics (20.8 ng/mL) > non-Hispanic Asians (7.39 ng/mL). The order in which cutoffs were observed for hydroxycotinine was non-Hispanic blacks (530.0 ng/mL) > non-Hispanic whites (180.0 ng/mL) > females (97.0 ng/mL) > total population (96.5 ng/mL) > males (95.9 ng/mL) > Hispanics (20.6 ng/mL) > non-Hispanic Asians (13.8 ng/mL). Thus, the largest cutoffs were observed for non-Hispanic blacks and the lowest cutoffs were observed for non-Hispanic Asians.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cutoffs; ROC curves; Sensitivity; Specificity; Urine cotinine; Urine hydroxycotinine

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2020        PMID: 31953760     DOI: 10.1007/s11356-020-07710-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int        ISSN: 0944-1344            Impact factor:   4.223


  20 in total

1.  Misclassification of smoking status in the CARDIA study: a comparison of self-report with serum cotinine levels.

Authors:  L E Wagenknecht; G L Burke; L L Perkins; N J Haley; G D Friedman
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1992-01       Impact factor: 9.308

2.  Selected volatile organic compounds as biomarkers for exposure to tobacco smoke.

Authors:  Ram B Jain
Journal:  Biomarkers       Date:  2016-02-05       Impact factor: 2.658

3.  Self-reported smoking, cotinine levels, and patterns of smoking in pregnancy.

Authors:  Kate E Pickett; Paul J Rathouz; Kristen Kasza; Lauren S Wakschlag; Rosalind Wright
Journal:  Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 3.980

4.  Elimination of cotinine from body fluids: implications for noninvasive measurement of tobacco smoke exposure.

Authors:  M J Jarvis; M A Russell; N L Benowitz; C Feyerabend
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1988-06       Impact factor: 9.308

5.  Analysis of self-reported versus biomarker based smoking prevalence: methodology to compute corrected smoking prevalence rates.

Authors:  Ram B Jain
Journal:  Biomarkers       Date:  2017-01-17       Impact factor: 2.658

6.  Lead and kidney: Concentrations, variabilities, and associations across the various stages of glomerular function.

Authors:  Ram B Jain
Journal:  J Trace Elem Med Biol       Date:  2019-03-15       Impact factor: 3.849

7.  The nicotine content of common vegetables.

Authors:  E F Domino; E Hornbach; T Demana
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1993-08-05       Impact factor: 91.245

8.  Optimal serum cotinine levels for distinguishing cigarette smokers and nonsmokers within different racial/ethnic groups in the United States between 1999 and 2004.

Authors:  Neal L Benowitz; John T Bernert; Ralph S Caraballo; David B Holiday; Jiantong Wang
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2008-11-19       Impact factor: 4.897

9.  Accuracy of self-reported smoking status among participants in a chemoprevention trial.

Authors:  María Elena Martínez; Mary Reid; Ruiyun Jiang; Janine Einspahr; David S Alberts
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 4.018

10.  Trends in the exposure of nonsmokers in the U.S. population to secondhand smoke: 1988-2002.

Authors:  James L Pirkle; John T Bernert; Samuel P Caudill; Connie S Sosnoff; Terry F Pechacek
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 9.031

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.