Transitions in Tobacco Product Use by U.S. Adults between 2013–2014 and 2014–2015: Findings from the PATH Study Wave 1 and Wave 2
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2013–2014, nearly 28% of adults in the United States (U.S.) were current tobacco users with cigarettes the most common product used and with nearly 40% of tobacco users using two or more tobacco products. We describe overall change in prevalence of tobacco product use and within-person transitions in tobacco product use in the U.S. between 2013–2014 and 2014–2015 for young adults (18–24 years) and older adults (25+ years). Data from Wave 1 (W1, 2013–2014) and Wave 2 (W2, 2014–2015) of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study were analyzed (N = 34,235). Tobacco product types were categorized into: (1) combustible (cigarettes, cigars, pipe tobacco, hookah), (2) noncombustible (smokeless tobacco, snus pouches, dissolvable tobacco), and (3) electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS). Transitions for individual combustible-product types, and for single- and multiple-product use, were also considered. Overall prevalence of current tobacco use decreased from 27.6% to 26.3%. Among W1 non-tobacco users, 88.7% of young adults and 95.8% of older adults were non-tobacco users at W2. Among W1 tobacco users, 71.7% of young adults transitioned, with 20.7% discontinuing use completely, and 45.9% of older adults transitioned, with 12.5% discontinuing use completely. Continuing with/transitioning toward combustible product(s), particularly cigarettes, was more common than continuing with/transitioning toward ENDS. Tobacco use behaviors were less stable among young adults than older adults, likely reflecting greater product experimentation among young adults. Relative stability of cigarette use compared to other tobacco products (except older adult noncombustible use) demonstrates high abuse liability for cigarettes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".