Flavour preferences in youth versus adults: a review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To understand the available evidence of how children and adults differ in their preferences for flavours that may be used in tobacco products. DATA SOURCES: A total of 474 articles published between 1931 and August 2015 were retrieved through searches conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and PsycINFO. STUDY SELECTION AND EXTRACTION: A 2-phase relevancy review process resulted in the identification of 59 articles and information was extracted by 2 independent reviewers. DATA SYNTHESIS: Findings were grouped by taste and smell preferences, which are important components of overall flavour. For taste, evidence is summarised in the following categories: sweet, salty, sour, bitter, umami and fat; within each of them, findings are organised by age categories. For smell, evidence is summarised as follows: fruit/herbal/spices, tobacco and coffee and other odours. Major findings from this search indicated that sweet preference in children and adolescents was higher than in adults. Examples of preferred food-related tastes and odours for young people included cherry, candy, strawberry, orange, apple and cinnamon. Currently, all these are used to flavour cigars, cartridges for electronic cigarettes, hookah (waterpipe) and smokeless tobacco products. CONCLUSIONS: Infants and children exhibited elevated sweet and salty preference relative to adults. Age-related changes in bitter, sour, umami and fat taste were not clear and more research would be useful. 'Sweet' food odours were highly preferred by children. Tobacco products in flavours preferred by young people may impact tobacco use and initiation, while flavours preferred by adults may impact product switching or dual use.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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".