Cigarettes, ENDS Use, and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Incidence: A Prospective Longitudinal Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Understanding the relationship between ENDS use and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and other respiratory conditions is critical. However, most previous studies have not fully adjusted for cigarette smoking history. METHODS: Using Waves 1-5 of the U.S. Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health study, the association between ENDS use and self-reported incident COPD was examined among adults aged 40+ years using discrete-time survival models. Current ENDS use was measured as a time-varying covariate, lagged by 1 wave, defined as established daily or some days of use. Multivariable models were adjusted for baseline demographics (age, sex, race/ethnicity, education), health characteristics (asthma, obesity, exposure to second-hand smoke), and smoking history (smoking status and cigarette pack years). Data were collected between 2013 and 2019, and the analysis was conducted in 2021-2022. RESULTS: Incident COPD was self-reported by 925 respondents during the 5-year follow-up. Before adjusting for other covariates, time-varying ENDS use appeared to double COPD incidence risk (hazard ratio=1.98, 95% CI=1.44, 2.74). However, ENDS use was no longer associated with COPD (adjusted hazard ratio=1.10, 95% CI=0.78, 1.57) after adjusting for current cigarette smoking and cigarette pack years. CONCLUSIONS: ENDS use did not significantly increase the risk of self-reported incident COPD over a 5-year period once current smoking status and cigarette pack years were included. Cigarette pack years, by contrast, remained associated with a net increase in COPD incidence risk. These findings highlight the importance of using prospective longitudinal data and adequately controlling for cigarette smoking history to assess the independent health effects of ENDS.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".