Concurrent Daily and Non-Daily Use of Heated Tobacco Products with Combustible Cigarettes: Findings from the 2018 ITC Japan Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Use of heated tobacco products (HTPs) among current smokers is becoming increasingly popular in Japan. This study aims to compare characteristics and tobacco-related behaviors among concurrent users of HTPs and combustible cigarettes (n = 644) with exclusive smokers (n = 3194) or exclusive HTP users (n = 164). The secondary aim was to explore heterogeneity within concurrent use subgroups. Data were from Wave 1 of the ITC Japan Survey, a nationally representative web survey conducted from February to March 2018. Concurrent cigarette-HTP users were younger and wealthier than exclusive smokers. However, there were no difference in the frequency of smoking, number of cigarettes per day, and smoking cessation behaviors between the two groups, suggesting that HTPs reinforce nicotine dependence. Compared to exclusive HTP users, concurrent cigarette-HTP users reported higher frequency of non-daily HTP use, and lower number of tobacco-containing inserts per day. Almost all concurrent cigarette-HTP users smoked every day (93.9%); 48.4% both smoked and used HTPs daily (dual daily users, n = 396), while 45.5% were daily smokers and non-daily HTP users (predominant smokers, n = 213). Concurrent user subgroups differed from each other on age, tobacco use behaviors, and quit intention. Alongside heterogeneity between concurrent and exclusive product users, differences across concurrent use subgroups highlight the importance of considering frequency of use in characterizing poly-tobacco users.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".