Zum Kommentar von Prof. Reiner Hanewinkel zum Hot Topic-Thema „Raucherentwöhnung: E-Zigarette besser als klassische Nikotinersatzpräparate?“ Pneumologie 2019; 73: 336 – 337
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sehr geehrter Herr Prof. Schaberg, sehr geehrter Herr Prof. Ewig, Es ist verdienstvoll, dass sich Herr Prof. Hanewinkel bei der Diskussion um Raucherentwöhnung und Nikotinersatzprodukte vehement dafür einsetzt, dass die Interessen der heranwachsenden Generation gewahrt und nicht aus den Augen verloren werden. Erfreulicherweise erlaubt die überwiegende Zahl der wissenschaftlichen Arbeiten zu diesem Thema den Schluss, dass der Einsatz der E-Zigarette zur Raucherentwöhnung kein zusätzliches Risiko für Jugendliche darstellt. Hallingberg et al. fassen dies so zusammen: „These analyses provide little evidence that renormalisation of youth smoking was occurring during a period of rapid growth and limited regulation of e-cigarettes from 2011 to 2015“ [ 1 ]. Die UK-Gesundheitsbehörden beurteilen die Lage so: „The evidence does not support the concern that e-cigarettes are a route into smoking among young people (youth smoking rates in the UK continue to decline, regular use is rare and is almost entirely confined to those who have smoked)“ [ 2 ]. Prof. Linda Bauld, Professor of Health Policy, University of Stirling and Chair in Behavioural Research for Cancer Prevention, Cancer Research UK äußerte sich zu dem Thema so: „Concern has been expressed that e-cigarette use will lead young people into smoking. But in the UK, research clearly shows that regular use of e-cigarettes among young people who have never smoked remains negligible, less than 1 %, and youth smoking continues to decline at an encouraging rate. We need to keep closely monitoring these trends, but so far the data suggest that e-cigarettes are not acting as a route into regular smoking amongst young people” [ 3 ]. Prof. Daniel Kotz publizierte, dass bei Jugendlichen zwischen 14 und 17 Jahren die Rate an Nutzern von E-Zigaretten und Tabakerhitzern bei 0,9 % bzw. 0,0 % liegt [ 4 ]. Auch Evidenz aus Kanada spricht gegen die Gateway-Theorie: „A key issue around vapour devices is the concern that youth use of vapour devices could lead to their uptake of tobacco products. This does not appear to be occurring as tobacco use in the US, Canada, and other countries is declining significantly among 12 – 19 year olds as vapour device use is increasing. Two independent regression analyses provide solid evidence against a gateway effect“ [ 5 ]. Zu all diesen Studien passt nun perfekt das Ergebnis der Hajek-Studie [6], das eindrucksvoll das hohe Potenzial der E-Zigarette in der Raucherentwöhnung zeigt, hier fast eine Verdoppelung der Abstinenzrate nach einem Jahr. Fazit ist, dass der Einsatz der E-Zigarette in der Raucherentwöhnung wirklich unzählige vorzeitige Todesfälle vermeiden kann. Dies sollte keinesfalls durch zwar berechtigte, aber nun sehr weitgehend widerlegte Bedenken konterkariert werden. Selbstverständlich muss diese erfreuliche Entwicklung von Epidemiologen und Gesundheitsbehörden weiter überprüft werden.
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 | 0.005 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.370 | 0.157 |
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".