Are electronic nicotine delivery systems an effective smoking cessation tool?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recent studies have estimated that 21% of all deaths over the past decade are due to smoking, making it the leading cause of premature death in Canada. To date, many steps have been taken to eradicate the global epidemic of tobacco smoking. Most recently, electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) have become a popular smoking cessation tool. ENDS do not burn or use tobacco leaves, but instead vapourize a solution the user then inhales. The main constituents of the solution, in addition to nicotine when nicotine is present, are propylene glycol, with or without glycerol and flavouring agents. Currently, ENDS are not regulated, and have become a controversial topic. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether ENDS are an effective smoking cessation tool. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted in February 2015 using the following databases: PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science Core Collection. Randomized controlled trials were the only publications included in the search. A secondary search was conducted by reviewing the references of relevant publications. RESULTS: After conducting the primary and secondary search, 109 publications were identified. After applying all inclusion and exclusion criteria through abstract and full-text review, four publications were included in the present literature review. A low risk of bias was established for each included study using the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias evaluation framework. DISCUSSION: The primary outcome measured in all studies was self-reported abstinence or reduction from smoking. In three of the four studies, self-reported abstinence or reduction from smoking was verified by measuring exhaled carbon monoxide. In the remaining study, the primary outcome measured was self-reported desire to smoke and measured desire to smoke. All four studies showed promise that ENDS are an effective smoking cessation tool. CONCLUSIONS: While all publications included in the present review revealed that ENDS are effective smoking cessation aid, further evaluation of the potential health effects in long-term use of ENDS remains vital.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.032 | 0.157 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".