Is E-cigarette Use Associated With Persistence or Discontinuation of Combustible Cigarettes? A 24-Month Longitudinal Investigation in Young Adult Binge Drinkers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: It remains unclear whether electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) use promotes persistent combustible tobacco use or smoking discontinuation over time. Alcohol use is associated with a greater risk of adverse health effects of tobacco, and higher likelihood of e-cigarette use, making drinkers a high-priority subpopulation. AIMS AND METHODS: This study examined longitudinal patterns of combustible tobacco and e-cigarette use over 24 months in young adult binge drinkers. A pooled dataset of 1002 (58.5% female; M age = 22.14) binge drinkers from the United States (60%) and Canada (40%) was used. The primary outcomes were past month combustible tobacco and e-cigarette use. Nicotine dependence was measured using the Fagerström Test of Cigarette Dependence. Alcohol severity was measured using the Young Adult Alcohol Consequences Questionnaire. Latent transition analysis (LTA) was used to identify patterns of cigarette smoking and e-cigarette use over 24 months. RESULTS: The LTA yielded a four-class solution: (1) e-cigarettes-only users (prevalence over time: 7.75%-10.10%), (2) dual-product users (2.61%-9.89%), (3) combustible-only smokers (8.12%-20.70%), and (4) nonusers (61.66%-80.06%). Dual-product users predominantly transitioned to complete abstinence or exclusively e-cigarette use. In combustible-only smokers, the most common transition was to abstinence, followed by persistence of combustible-only status. At 24 months, 63% of e-cigarettes-only users transitioned to abstinence, with 37% continuing e-cigarettes-only use and 0% transitioning to dual or combustible cigarette use. CONCLUSIONS: Dual-product use in young adult binge drinkers was associated with discontinuation of combustible tobacco over time, and e-cigarette-only use was not associated with subsequent combustible tobacco use. IMPLICATIONS: These findings suggest that concurrent or exclusive e-cigarette use is not a risk factor for the persistence or development of combustible tobacco use in this subpopulation, with dual-product use reflecting a transitional pattern away from combustible use, toward discontinuation.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".