New ideas, old problems? Heated tobacco products – a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Heated tobacco products (HTPs) are a form of nicotine delivery intended to provide an alternative to traditional cigarettes. The aim of this systematic review was to present the current state of knowledge on HTPs with an emphasis on the potential impact of HTP use on human health. During the preparation of this systematic review, the literature on HTPs available within Medline/PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar was retrieved and examined. In the final review, 97 research papers were included. The authors specifically assessed the construction and operation of HTPs, as well as the chemical composition of HTP tobacco sticks and the generated aerosol, based on evidence from experimental animal and cellular studies, and human-based studies.Heated tobacco products were found to generate lower concentrations of chemical compounds compared to traditional cigarettes, except for water, propylene glycol, glycerol, and acetol. The nicotine levels delivered to the aerosol by HTPs were 70-80% as those of conventional combustion. The results of in vitro and in vivo assessments of HTP aerosols revealed reduced toxicity, but these were mainly based on studies sponsored by the tobacco industry. Independent human-based studies indicated that there was a potentially harmful impact of the active and passive HTP smoking on human health. Currently, a large body of knowledge on HTP exposures and health effects is provided by the tobacco industry (52% of identified studies). Based on the available evidence, HTPs produce lower levels of toxic chemicals, compared to conventional cigarettes, but they are still not risk-free. Int J Occup Med Environ Health. 2019;32(5):595-634.
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 | 0.010 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".