CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 54

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparison of biomarkers of exposure among US adult smokers, users of electronic nicotine delivery systems, dual users and nonusers, 2018–2019

Holt, Nathan M., Shiffman, Saul, Black, Ryan A., Goldenson, Nicholas I., Sembower, Mark A., Oldham, Michael J.·2023·Scientific Reports
DOI 10.1038/s41598-023-34427-xPMC PMC10163269
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The harm caused by cigarette smoking is overwhelmingly due to byproducts of tobacco combustion. Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems (ENDS) provide nicotine to users without combustion, and may support tobacco harm reduction among cigarette smokers who would not otherwise quit in the near term. Analyses of Wave 5 of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study compared biomarkers of exposure (BOE) levels for nicotine, 3 metals, 2 tobacco-specific nitrosamines and 14 smoking-related volatile organic compounds in 151 exclusive ENDS users, 1341 exclusive cigarette smokers, 115 dual users (cigarettes and ENDS), and 1846 past 30-day nonusers of tobacco, adjusting for demographics. Nicotine exposure in ENDS users and dual users did not significantly differ from smokers. Among ENDS users, 16 of 18 other BOEs were significantly lower than smokers’; 9 BOEs were not significantly different from nonusers. Among dual users smoking < 10 cigarettes/day, 15 of 18 non-nicotine BOEs were significantly lower than smokers’, whereas in dual users smoking ≥ 10 cigarettes per day none of the BOEs significantly differed from smokers’. In this representative sample of US adults, exclusive use of ENDS (vs. cigarette smoking) was associated with much lower exposures to many harmful chemicals associated with smoking-related disease. BOE levels in dual users were directly related to their cigarette consumption. These BOE data provide further evidence that ENDS expose users to substantially lower levels of toxicants than combustible cigarettes, confirming their potential for harm reduction.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41598-023-34427-x

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Nicotine equivalents among smokers, ENDS users, dual users stratified by cigarettes/day and tobacco nonusers (weighted adjusted geometric mean and 95% confidence interval). Note. Groups whose bars do not share a letter above the bar are significantly different (p < 0.05). Groups whose bars share a letter do not significantly differ from each other (p ≥ 0.05). Geometric mean ratios, and more exact p-values are shown in Table S6 in the Supplemental Materials. Adjusted geometric means and confidence interval endpoints were derived from a weighted regression analysis with covariates for age, sex, race/ethnicity, and BMI and were computed by exponentiating predicted population margins with covariate values fixed at the observed means. The analysis was weighted to represent the US adult civilian, noninstitutionalized population of never, current, and recent (within 1-year) former tobacco users. Current Smokers: TNE2, N = 1341; TNE6, N = 1327. 10 + CPD Dual Users: TNE2, N = 61; TNE6, N = 61. < 10 CPD Dual Users: TNE2, N = 54; TNE6, N = 53. Current ENDS Users: TNE2, N = 151; TNE6, N = 146. Past 30-day Nonusers: TNE2, N = 1842; TNE6, N = 152.
Figure 1 Nicotine equivalents among smokers, ENDS users, dual users stratified by cigarettes/day and tobacco nonusers (weighted adjusted geometric mean and 95% confidence interval). Note. Groups whose bars do not share a letter above the bar are significantly different (p < 0.05). Groups whose bars share a letter do not significantly differ from each other (p ≥ 0.05). Geometric mean ratios, and more exact p-values are shown in Table S6 in the Supplemental Materials. Adjusted geometric means and confidence interval endpoints were derived from a weighted regression analysis with covariates for age, sex, race/ethnicity, and BMI and were computed by exponentiating predicted population margins with covariate values fixed at the observed means. The analysis was weighted to represent the US adult civilian, noninstitutionalized population of never, current, and recent (within 1-year) former tobacco users. Current Smokers: TNE2, N = 1341; TNE6, N = 1327. 10 + CPD Dual Users: TNE2, N = 61; TNE6, N = 61. < 10 CPD Dual Users: TNE2, N = 54; TNE6, N = 53. Current ENDS Users: TNE2, N = 151; TNE6, N = 146. Past 30-day Nonusers: TNE2, N = 1842; TNE6, N = 152.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 BOEs of tobacco-specific nitrosamines among smokers, ENDS users, dual users stratified by cigarettes/day and past 30-day nonusers (weighted adjusted geometric mean and 95% confidence interval). Note. Groups whose bars do not share a letter above the bar are significantly different (p < 0.05). Groups whose bars share a letter do not significantly differ from each other (p ≥ 0.05). Geometric mean ratios, and more exact p-values are shown in Table S6 in the Supplemental Materials. Adjusted geometric means and confidence interval endpoints were derived from a weighted regression analysis with covariates for age, sex, race/ethnicity, and BMI and were computed by exponentiating predicted population margins with covariate values fixed at the observed margins. The analysis was weighted to represent the US adult civilian, noninstitutionalized population of never, current, and recent (within 1-year) former tobacco users. Current Smokers: NNAL, N = 1338; NNN, N = 1309. 10 + CPD Dual Users: NNAL, N = 60; NNN, N = 58. < 10 CPD Dual Users: NNAL, N = 54; NNN, N = 53. Current ENDS Users: NNAL, N = 149; NNN, N = 148. Past 30-day Nonusers: NNAL, N = 1828; NNN, N = 1836.
Figure 2 BOEs of tobacco-specific nitrosamines among smokers, ENDS users, dual users stratified by cigarettes/day and past 30-day nonusers (weighted adjusted geometric mean and 95% confidence interval). Note. Groups whose bars do not share a letter above the bar are significantly different (p < 0.05). Groups whose bars share a letter do not significantly differ from each other (p ≥ 0.05). Geometric mean ratios, and more exact p-values are shown in Table S6 in the Supplemental Materials. Adjusted geometric means and confidence interval endpoints were derived from a weighted regression analysis with covariates for age, sex, race/ethnicity, and BMI and were computed by exponentiating predicted population margins with covariate values fixed at the observed margins. The analysis was weighted to represent the US adult civilian, noninstitutionalized population of never, current, and recent (within 1-year) former tobacco users. Current Smokers: NNAL, N = 1338; NNN, N = 1309. 10 + CPD Dual Users: NNAL, N = 60; NNN, N = 58. < 10 CPD Dual Users: NNAL, N = 54; NNN, N = 53. Current ENDS Users: NNAL, N = 149; NNN, N = 148. Past 30-day Nonusers: NNAL, N = 1828; NNN, N = 1836.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 BOEs of VOCs among smokers, ENDS users, dual users stratified by CPD and past 30-day nonusers (weighted adjusted geometric mean and 95% confidence interval). Note. All values represent μg/g creatinine. Groups whose bars do not share a letter above the bar are significantly different (p < 0.05). Groups whose bars share a letter do not significantly differ from each other (p ≥ 0.05). Geometric mean ratios, and more exact p-values are shown in Table S6 in the Supplemental Materials. Adjusted geometric means and confidence interval endpoints were derived from a weighted regression analysis with covariates for age, sex, race/ethnicity, and BMI and were computed by exponentiating predicted population margins with covariate values fixed at the observed means. The analysis was weighted to represent the US adult civilian, noninstitutionalized population of never, current, and recent (within 1-year) former tobacco users. Current Smokers, N = 1341; 10 + CPD Dual Users, N = 61; < 10 CPD Dual Users, N = 54; ENDS Users, N = 151; Past 30-day Nonusers, N = 1846.
Figure 3 BOEs of VOCs among smokers, ENDS users, dual users stratified by CPD and past 30-day nonusers (weighted adjusted geometric mean and 95% confidence interval). Note. All values represent μg/g creatinine. Groups whose bars do not share a letter above the bar are significantly different (p < 0.05). Groups whose bars share a letter do not significantly differ from each other (p ≥ 0.05). Geometric mean ratios, and more exact p-values are shown in Table S6 in the Supplemental Materials. Adjusted geometric means and confidence interval endpoints were derived from a weighted regression analysis with covariates for age, sex, race/ethnicity, and BMI and were computed by exponentiating predicted population margins with covariate values fixed at the observed means. The analysis was weighted to represent the US adult civilian, noninstitutionalized population of never, current, and recent (within 1-year) former tobacco users. Current Smokers, N = 1341; 10 + CPD Dual Users, N = 61; < 10 CPD Dual Users, N = 54; ENDS Users, N = 151; Past 30-day Nonusers, N = 1846.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 4 BOEs of metals among smokers, ENDS users, dual users stratified by cigarettes/day and past 30-day nonusers (weighted adjusted geometric mean and 95% confidence interval). Note. Groups whose bars do not share a letter above the bar are significantly different (p < 0.05). Groups whose bars share a letter do not significantly differ from each other (p ≥ 0.05). Geometric mean ratios, and more exact p-values are shown in Table S6 in the Supplemental Materials. Adjusted geometric means and confidence interval endpoints were derived from a weighted regression analysis with covariates for age, sex, race/ethnicity, and BMI and were computed by exponentiating predicted population margins with covariate values fixed at the observed means. The analysis was weighted to represent the US adult civilian, noninstitutionalized population of never, current, and recent (within 1-year) former tobacco users. Current Smokers, N = 1341; 10 + CPD Dual Users, N = 61; < 10 CPD Dual Users, N = 54; ENDS Users, N = 151; Past 30-day Nonusers, N = 1845.
Figure 4 BOEs of metals among smokers, ENDS users, dual users stratified by cigarettes/day and past 30-day nonusers (weighted adjusted geometric mean and 95% confidence interval). Note. Groups whose bars do not share a letter above the bar are significantly different (p < 0.05). Groups whose bars share a letter do not significantly differ from each other (p ≥ 0.05). Geometric mean ratios, and more exact p-values are shown in Table S6 in the Supplemental Materials. Adjusted geometric means and confidence interval endpoints were derived from a weighted regression analysis with covariates for age, sex, race/ethnicity, and BMI and were computed by exponentiating predicted population margins with covariate values fixed at the observed means. The analysis was weighted to represent the US adult civilian, noninstitutionalized population of never, current, and recent (within 1-year) former tobacco users. Current Smokers, N = 1341; 10 + CPD Dual Users, N = 61; < 10 CPD Dual Users, N = 54; ENDS Users, N = 151; Past 30-day Nonusers, N = 1845.CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 59

  1. World Health Organization. WHO Report on the Global Tobacco Epidemic, 2017: Monitoring Tobacco Use and Prevention Policies (World Health Organization, 2017).
  2. Jha, P. & Peto, R. Global effects of smoking, of quitting, and of taxing tobacco. N. Engl. J. Med. 370(1), 60–68 (2014). · DOI · Paper page
  3. USDHHS. Reports of the Surgeon General, in The Health Consequences of Smoking-50 Years of Progress: A Report of the Surgeon General (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (US), 2014).
  4. USDHHS. Publications and Reports of the Surgeon General, in How Tobacco Smoke Causes Disease: The Biology and Behavioral Basis for Smoking-Attributable Disease: A Report of the Surgeon General (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (US), 2010).
  5. US Food and Drug Administration. Harmful and potentially harmful constituents in tobacco products and tobacco smoke: Established list. Fed. Regist. 77(64), 20034–20037 (2012).
  6. Chang, C. et al. Biomarkers of tobacco exposure: Summary of an FDA-sponsored public workshop. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev. 26(3), 291–302 (2017). · DOI
  7. Institute of Medicine. Scientific Standards for Studies on Modified Risk Tobacco Products (The National Academies Press, 2012).
  8. NASEM In Public Health Consequences of E-Cigarettes (eds Eaton, D. L. et al.) (National Academies Press, 2018). Copyright 2018 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved, Washington (DC).
  9. Akiyama, Y. & Sherwood, N. Systematic review of biomarker findings from clinical studies of electronic cigarettes and heated tobacco products. Toxicol. Rep. 8, 282–294 (2021). · DOI
  10. Hiler, M. et al. Systemic biomarkers of exposure associated with ENDS use: A scoping review. Tob. Control https://doi.org/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2021-056896 (2021). · DOI
  11. Hartmann-Boyce, J. et al. Biomarkers of potential harm in people switching from smoking tobacco to exclusive e-cigarette use, dual use or abstinence: Secondary analysis of Cochrane systematic review of trials of e-cigarettes for smoking cessation. Addiction 118, 539–545 (2022). · DOI
  12. Ward, A. M., Yaman, R. & Ebbert, J. O. Electronic nicotine delivery system design and aerosol toxicants: A systematic review. PLoS One 15(6), e0234189 (2020). · DOI
  13. Henning, R. et al. Acrolein can cause cardiovascular disease: A review. Cardiovasc. Toxicol. 17(3), 227–236 (2017). · DOI
  14. Dean, W. L. et al. Effects of the butadiene metabolite diepoxybutane on endothelial cell and platelet function. FASEB J. 23, 739.7 (2009). · DOI
  15. Soeteman-Hernández, L. G., Bos, P. M. & Talhout, R. Tobacco smoke-related health effects induced by 1,3-butadiene and strategies for risk reduction. Toxicol. Sci. 136(2), 566–580 (2013). · DOI
  16. Olmedo, P. et al. Metal concentrations in e-cigarette liquid and aerosol samples: The contribution of metallic coils. Environ. Health Perspect. 126(2), 027010 (2018). · DOI
  17. Williams, M. et al. Metal and silicate particles including nanoparticles are present in electronic cigarette cartomizer fluid and aerosol. PLoS One 8(3), e57987 (2013). · DOI · Paper page
  18. Potter, N. A. et al. Particulate matter and associated metals: A link with neurotoxicity and mental health. Atmosphere 12(4), 425 (2021). · DOI
  19. Jaishankar, M. et al. Toxicity, mechanism and health effects of some heavy metals. Interdiscip. Toxicol. 7(2), 60–72 (2014). · DOI · Paper page
  20. Goniewicz, M. L. et al. Comparison of nicotine and toxicant exposure in users of electronic cigarettes and combustible cigarettes. JAMA Netw. Open 1(8), e185937 (2018). · DOI · Paper page
  21. De Jesús, V. R. et al. Urinary biomarkers of exposure to volatile organic compounds from the population assessment of tobacco and health study wave 1 (2013–2014). Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 17(15), 5408 (2020). · DOI
  22. Smith, D. M. et al. Exposure to nicotine and toxicants among dual users of tobacco cigarettes and e-cigarettes: Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study, 2013–2014. Nicotine Tob. Res. 23(5), 790–797 (2021). · DOI
  23. Majeed, B. et al. Cluster analysis of urinary tobacco biomarkers among U.S. adults: Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) biomarker study (2013–2014). Prev. Med. 140, 106218 (2020). · DOI
  24. Lizhnyak, P. N. et al. Understanding heterogeneity among individuals who smoke cigarettes and vape: Assessment of biomarkers of exposure and potential harm among subpopulations from the PATH Wave 1 Data. Harm. Reduct. J. 19(1), 90 (2022). · DOI
  25. Anic, G. M. et al. Changes in biomarkers of tobacco exposure among cigarette smokers transitioning to ENDS use: The population assessment of tobacco and health study, 2013–2015. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 19(3), 1462 (2022). · DOI
  26. Dai, H. et al. Exposure to toxicants associated with use and transitions between cigarettes, e-cigarettes, and no tobacco. JAMA Netw. Open 5(2), e2147891 (2022). · DOI · Paper page
  27. Cantrell, J. et al. History and current trends in the electronic cigarette retail marketplace in the United States: 2010–2016. Nicotine Tob. Res. 22(5), 843–847 (2018). · DOI
  28. Coleman, B. et al. An Examination of device types and features used by adult electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) users in the PATH study, 2015–2016. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 16(13), 2329 (2019). · DOI
  29. Ali, F. R. M. et al. E-cigarette unit sales, by product and flavor type—United States, 2014–2020. Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 69(37), 1313 (2020). · DOI
  30. Feng, J. et al. Urinary nicotine metabolites and self-reported tobacco use among adults in the population assessment of tobacco and health (PATH) study, 2013–2014. Nicotine Tob. Res. 24(5), 768–777 (2022). · DOI
  31. Romberg, A. R. et al. Patterns of nicotine concentrations in electronic cigarettes sold in the United States, 2013–2018. Drug Alcohol Depend. 203, 1–7 (2019). · DOI
  32. Talih, S. et al. Characteristics and toxicant emissions of JUUL electronic cigarettes. Tob. Control 28(6), 678–680 (2019). · DOI
  33. Baig, S. A. & Giovenco, D. P. Behavioral heterogeneity among cigarette and e-cigarette dual-users and associations with future tobacco use: Findings from the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health Study. Addict. Behav. 104, 106263 (2020). · DOI
  34. Oliveri, D., Liang, Q. & Sarkar, M. Real-world evidence of differences in biomarkers of exposure to select harmful and potentially harmful constituents and biomarkers of potential harm between adult e-vapor users and adult cigarette smokers. Nicotine Tob. Res. 22(7), 1114–1122 (2020). · DOI
  35. Cohen, G. et al. Changes in biomarkers of cigarette smoke exposure after 6 days of switching exclusively or partially to use of the JUUL system with two nicotine concentrations: A randomized controlled confinement study in adult smokers. Nicotine Tob. Res. 23, 2153–2161 (2021). · DOI
  36. Jay, J. et al. Five-day changes in biomarkers of exposure among adult smokers after completely switching from combustible cigarettes to a nicotine-salt pod system. Nicotine Tob. Res. 22(8), 1285–1293 (2020). · DOI
  37. Shahab, L. et al. Nicotine, carcinogen, and toxin exposure in long-term e-cigarette and nicotine replacement therapy users: A cross-sectional study. Ann. Intern. Med. 166(6), 390–400 (2017). · DOI · Paper page
  38. Wang, J. B. et al. Cigarette and e-cigarette dual use and risk of cardiopulmonary symptoms in the Health eHeart Study. PLoS One 13(7), e0198681 (2018). · DOI
  39. Bhatta, D. N. & Glantz, S. A. Association of e-cigarette use with respiratory disease among adults: A longitudinal analysis. Am. J. Prev. Med. 58(2), 182–190 (2020). · DOI
  40. Rostron, B. L. et al. Associations of cigarettes smoked per day with biomarkers of exposure among U.S. adult cigarette smokers in the population assessment of tobacco and health (PATH) study wave 1 (2013–2014). Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev. 28(9), 1443–1453 (2019). · DOI
  41. Pulvers, K. et al. Effect of pod e-cigarettes vs cigarettes on carcinogen exposure among African American and Latinx smokers: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Netw. Open 3(11), e2026324 (2020). · DOI
  42. Cobb, C. O. et al. Tobacco-use behavior and toxicant exposure among current dual users of electronic cigarettes and tobacco cigarettes. Exp. Clin. Psychopharmacol. 29, 625–635 (2021). · DOI
  43. Czoli, C. D. et al. Biomarkers of exposure among “dual users” of tobacco cigarettes and electronic cigarettes in Canada. Nicotine Tob. Res. 21(9), 1259–1266 (2019). · DOI
  44. D’Ruiz, C. D., Graff, D. W. & Robinson, E. Reductions in biomarkers of exposure, impacts on smoking urge and assessment of product use and tolerability in adult smokers following partial or complete substitution of cigarettes with electronic cigarettes. BMC Public Health 16(1), 543 (2016). · DOI
  45. O’Connell, G., Graff, D. W. & D’Ruiz, C. D. Reductions in biomarkers of exposure (BoE) to harmful or potentially harmful constituents (HPHCs) following partial or complete substitution of cigarettes with electronic cigarettes in adult smokers. Toxicol. Mech. Methods 26(6), 443–454 (2016).
  46. Jacob, P. et al. Biomarkers of exposure for dual use of electronic cigarettes and combustible cigarettes: Nicotelline, NNAL, and total nicotine equivalents. Nicotine Tob. Res. 22(7), 1107–1113 (2020). · DOI
  47. St Helen, G. et al. Comparison of systemic exposure to toxic and/or carcinogenic volatile organic compounds (VOC) during vaping, smoking, and abstention. Cancer Prev. Res. (Phila) 13(2), 153–162 (2020). · DOI
  48. Piper, M. E. et al. Dual users compared to smokers: Demographics, dependence, and biomarkers. Nicotine Tob. Res. 21(9), 1279–1284 (2019). · DOI
  49. Selya, A. S., Shiffman, S., Greenberg, M. & Augustson, E. M. Dual use of cigarettes and JUUL: Trajectory and cigarette consumption. Am. J. Health Behav. 45(3), 464–485 (2021). · DOI
  50. Zervas, E. et al. Transfer of metals in the liquids of electronic cigarettes. Inhal. Toxicol. 32(6), 240–248 (2020). · DOI
  51. Na, C. J. et al. The transfer characteristics of heavy metals in electronic cigarette liquid. Environ. Res. 174, 152–159 (2019). · DOI
  52. Soulet, S. & Sussman, R. A. A critical review of recent literature on metal contents in e-cigarette aerosol. Toxics 10(9), 510 (2022). · DOI
  53. Tareke, E. et al. Analysis of acrylamide, a carcinogen formed in heated foodstuffs. J. Agric. Food Chem. 50(17), 4998–5006 (2002). · DOI
  54. Jackson, L. S. & Al-Taher, F. Effects of consumer food preparation on acrylamide formation. Adv. Exp. Med. Biol. 561, 447–465 (2005). · DOI
  55. Abrams, D. B. et al. Harm minimization and tobacco control: Reframing societal views of nicotine use to rapidly save lives. Annu. Rev. Public Health 39, 193–213 (2018). · DOI
  56. Abrams, D. B. et al. Managing nicotine without smoke to save lives now: Evidence for harm minimization. Prev. Med. 117, 88–97 (2018). · DOI
  57. Goldenson, N. I. et al. Differences in switching away from smoking among adult smokers using JUUL products in regions with different maximum nicotine concentrations: North America and the United Kingdom. Nicotine Tob. Res. 23, 1821–1830 (2021). · DOI
  58. Cobb, C. O. et al. Effect of an electronic nicotine delivery system with 0, 8, or 36 mg/mL liquid nicotine versus a cigarette substitute on tobacco-related toxicant exposure: A four-arm, parallel-group, randomised, controlled trial. Lancet Respir. Med. 9, 840–850 (2021). · DOI
  59. Foulds, J. et al. Effect of electronic nicotine delivery systems on cigarette abstinence in smokers with no plans to quit: Exploratory analysis of a randomized placebo-controlled trial. Nicotine Tob. Res. 24(7), 955–961 (2021). · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 54

Metadata

Authors
Holt, N. M., Shiffman, S., Black, R. A., Goldenson, N. I., Sembower, M. A., & Oldham, M. J.
Venue
Scientific Reports
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2023-05-05
Volume
13
Issue
1
ISSN
2045-2322
DOI
10.1038/s41598-023-34427-x
PMC
PMC10163269
Cited by
54
References
2
Language
en
Licence
Funders
Juul Labs, Inc.

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review