E-cigarettes: A new hazard for children and adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objectives Electronic cigarettes and fluid (e-cigarettes, e-fluid) are hazardous materials that when inhaled or ingested may pose significant health risks to children and adolescents. The objective of this work was to explore the spectrum of injury related to e-cigarette exposure among Canadian children and adolescents. Methods A one-time survey was sent to all paediatricians in Canada. Information was collected on children and adolescents who presented with e-cigarette exposure (inhalation and ingestion cases) in the previous 12 months. Questions included the number of injuries and symptoms, in addition to age, sex, treatment setting, intentional e-cigarette use, and how the products were accessed. Results A total of 520 surveys were completed and returned, identifying 35 cases. Symptoms related to inhalation were present in 30 cases and in 5 ingestion cases (5 unintentional, 0 intentional). For inhalation cases, most were male, ages 15 to 19 years, who sought treatment for nausea/vomiting, cough, throat irritation, or acute nicotine toxicity in an outpatient clinic/office. Most inhalation cases reported e-cigarette use 2 to 3 days/week, and e-cigarettes purchases from a mall kiosk/store. For ingestion cases, most were male, ages 1 to 4 years presenting to an emergency department with nausea/vomiting, cough, or respiratory irritation. Younger cases accessed e-fluid at home, older cases purchased in a mall kiosk/store. E-fluid flavours reported consumed were fruit, candy, and tobacco. Conclusions E-cigarettes, recently introduced into the North American market are hazardous to children and adolescents. Given the low response rate to the survey, further investigation into the true burden of injury, as well as the risks that e-cigarettes pose, together with ways to reduce exposure, is needed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".