Longitudinal transitions of exclusive and polytobacco electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) use among youth, young adults and adults in the USA: findings from the PATH Study Waves 1–3 (2013–2016)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS; including e-cigarettes) are rapidly evolving in the US marketplace. This study reports cross-sectional prevalence and longitudinal pathways of ENDS use across 3 years, among US youth (12-17 years), young adults (18-24 years) and adults 25+ (25 years and older). DESIGN: Data were from the first three waves (2013-2016) of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health Study, a nationally representative, longitudinal cohort study of US youth and adults. Respondents with data at all three waves (youth, n=11 046; young adults, n=6478; adults 25+, n=17 188) were included in longitudinal analyses. RESULTS: Weighted cross-sectional ever use of ENDS increased at each wave. Across all three waves, young adults had the highest percentages of past 12-month, past 30-day (P30D) and daily P30D ENDS use compared with youth and adults 25+. Only about a quarter of users had persistent P30D ENDS use at each wave. Most ENDS users were polytobacco users. Exclusive Wave 1 ENDS users had a higher proportion of subsequent discontinued any tobacco use compared with polytobacco ENDS users who also used cigarettes. CONCLUSIONS: ENDS use is most common among young adults compared with youth and adults 25+. However, continued use of ENDS over 2 years is not common for any age group. Health education efforts to reduce the appeal and availability of ENDS products might focus on reducing ENDS experimentation, and on reaching the smaller subgroups of daily ENDS users to better understand their reasons for 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".