The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Misclassification of smoking status in the CARDIA study: a comparison of self-report with serum cotinine levels.
Abstract
BACKGROUND. Although widely used in epidemiological studies, self-report has been shown to underestimate the prevalence of cigarette smoking in some populations. METHODS. In the CARDIA study, self-report of cigarette smoking was validated against a biochemical marker of nicotine uptake, serum cotinine. RESULTS. The prevalence of smoking was slightly lower when defined by self-report (30.9%) than when defined by cotinine levels equal to or greater than 14 ng/mL (32.2%, P less than .05). The misclassification rate (proportion of reported nonsmokers with cotinine levels of at least 14 ng/mL) was 4.2% and was significantly higher among subjects who were Black, had a high school education or less, or were reported former smokers. Possible reasons for misclassification include reporting error, environmental tobacco smoke, and an inappropriate cutoff point for delineation of smoking status. Using self-report as the gold standard, the cotinine cutoff points that maximized sensitivity and specificity were 14, 9, and 15 ng/mL for all, White, and Black subjects, respectively. The misclassification rate remained significantly higher in Black than in White subjects using these race-specific criteria. CONCLUSIONS. Misclassification of cigarette smoking by self-report was low in these young adults; however, within certain race/education groups, self-report may underestimate smoking prevalence by up to 4%.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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.
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
Comparison of tests used to distinguish smokers from nonsmokers
Jarvis, M. J., Tunstall-Pedoe, H., Feyerabend, C., Vesey, C., & Saloojee, Y. (1987) · American Journal of Public Health · doi:10.2105/ajph.77.11.1435 · Cited by 994
Cited by
Gorber, S. C., Schofield-Hurwitz, S., Hardt, J., Levasseur, G., & Tremblay, M. (2009) · Nicotine & Tobacco Research · doi:10.1093/ntr/ntn010 · Cited by 1,079
Rao, J. K., Anderson, L. A., Inui, T. S., & Frankel, R. M. (2007) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/01.mlr.0000254516.04961.d5 · Cited by 469
Caraballo, R. S. (2001) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/aje/153.8.807 · Cited by 396
Newell, S. A., Girgis, A., Sanson-Fisher, R. W., & Savolainen, N. J. (1999) · American Journal of Preventive Medicine · doi:10.1016/s0749-3797(99)00069-0 · Cited by 379
Gilman, S. E., Abrams, D. B., & Buka, S. L. (2003) · Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health · doi:10.1136/jech.57.10.802 · Cited by 311
Metadata
- Authors
- Wagenknecht, L. E., Burke, G. L., Perkins, L. L., Haley, N. J., & Friedman, G. D.
- Venue
- American Journal of Public Health
- Publisher
- American Public Health Association
- Published
- 1992-01
- Volume
- 82
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 33-36
- ISSN
- 0090-0036 (ISSN-L)
- 1541-0048
- OpenAlex
- W2158313887
- Cited by
- 374
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 5.08
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Misclassification of smoking status in the CARDIA study: a comparison of self-report with serum cotinine levels. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2105/ajph.82.1.33
- The paper
- Wagenknecht, L. E., Burke, G. L., Perkins, L. L., Haley, N. J., & Friedman, G. D. (1992). Misclassification of smoking status in the CARDIA study: a comparison of self-report with serum cotinine levels. American Journal of Public Health. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.82.1.33
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.