As the only citation in the following entries (all in Latin script; variants and mss. spellings, etc. noted):
ὀξυπαιδερώτινος Hist.Aug.Aurelian.46<.4> [acc.pl. in the context: oxypederotinas with
πανδουρίζω, play the πανδοῦρα, Hist.Aug.Elag.32<.8>:
actually pandurizavit (but, cf. πανδουριστής, οῦ, ὁ, one who plays it, Euph. Fr.Hist. 8, JRS 18.177 (Jerash)')
πενταφάρμακος Hist.Aug.Hel.5 [= Spart. Ael. Ver. 5<.4 and 5> Lewis and Short, s.v.: pentefarmacum]. tetrapharmacum also appears 2x in the context [terrafarmacu P^1 pentefarmacum P pentafarmacum Pet post pentefarmacum add. Σ ut alii ferunt & pentafarmacu P terrafarmacu P^1]
χρηστολόγος giving fair words, speaking plausibly, Hist.Aug.Pertinax 13.5 [christologum P (chestologon Epi. de Caes. 18, 4)].
As one of two citations for an entry: αὐθέψης Cic.Rosc.Amer.46.133, Hist.Aug.Elag.19<.3> [autepsas P mensas et capsas superscr. a. m.].
Russian samovar mirrors the structure of the word (illustrations), but, presumably, is not a calque.
Dyck comments on the Cicero passage, as follows:
"An authepsas was a cooker containing its own heating element, the Romans, as often, having borrowed the name along with the object from the Greeks; our passage is the word's first and only attestation [we could add 'in either language']; cf. OLD [which does not extend its coverage beyond Apuleius] and TLL s.v.". He goes on to quote Seneca, Ep.78.23, where this kind of device is in view, but this noun is not used.
Neither the OCT nor the Teubner report any variation in the spelling of this word.
LSJ does not have Ros.Amer. in its Abbreviations list under Cic. Only works of rhetorical theory and philosophy are mentioned there, as well as the collections of letters (unsurprisingly from the point of view of code-switching and lexical borrowing). A full list of instances of 'Cic.' in LSJ is easily generated.
As a (unique) citation for a subsection: ἀγαθοδαίμων II Hist.Aug.Elag.28<.3>.