MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4386964538 · doi:10.2196/49876

Using a Novel Connected Device for the Collection of Puffing Topography Data for the Vuse Solo Electronic Nicotine Delivery System in a Real-World Setting: Prospective Ambulatory Clinical Study

2023· article· en· W4386964538 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Robert G. Underly, Gary M. Dull, Evan Nudi, Timothy Pionk, Kristen Prevette, Jeffrey S. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSmoking Behavior and Cessation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBritish American Tobacco
KeywordsContext (archaeology)PercentilePopulationAmbulatorySession (web analytics)Data collectionMedicineComputer scienceGeographyStatisticsWorld Wide WebMathematicsSurgeryEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Over the last decade, the use of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDSs) has risen, whereas studies that describe how consumers use these products have been limited. Most studies related to ENDS use have involved study designs focused on use in a central location environment or attempted to measure use outcomes through subjective self-reported end points. The development of accurate and reliable tools to collect data in a naturalistic real-world environment is necessary to capture the complexities of ENDS use. Using connected devices in a real-world setting provides a convenient and objective approach to collecting behavioral outcomes with ENDS. OBJECTIVE: The Product Use and Behavior instrument was developed and used to capture the use of the Vuse Solo ENDS in an ambulatory setting to best replicate real-world use behavior. This study aims to determine overall mean values for topography outcomes while also providing a definition for an ENDS use session. METHODS: A prospective ambulatory clinical study was performed with the Product Use and Behavior instrument. Participants (n=75) were aged between 21 and 60 years, considered in good health, and were required to be established regular users of ENDSs. To better understand use behavior within the population, the sample was sorted into percentiles with bins based on daily puff counts. To frame these data in the relevant context, they were binned into low-, moderate-, and high-use categories (10th to 40th, 40th to 70th, and 70th to 100th percentiles, respectively), with the low-use group representing the nonintense category, the high-use group representing the intense category, and the moderate-use group being reflective of the average consumer. RESULTS: Participants with higher daily use took substantially more puffs per use session (6.71 vs 4.40) and puffed more frequently (interpuff interval: 32.78 s vs 61.66 s) than participants in the low-use group. Puff duration remained consistent across the low-, moderate‑, and high-use groups (2.10 s, 2.18 s, and 2.19 s, respectively). The moderate-use group had significantly shorter session lengths (P<.001) than the high- and low-use groups, which did not differ significantly from each other (P=.16). CONCLUSIONS: Using connected devices allows for a convenient and robust approach to the collection of behavioral outcomes related to product use in an ambulatory setting. By using the variables captured with these tools, it becomes possible to move away from predefined periods of use to better understand topography outcomes and define use sessions. The data presented here offer a possible method to define these sessions. These data also begin to frame international standards used for the analytical assessments of ENDSs in the correct context and begin to shed light on the differences between standardized testing regimens and actual use behavior. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04226404; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04226404.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.307
GPT teacher head0.522
Teacher spread0.215 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative Research→Same topicSmoking Behavior and Cessation→French-language works237,207→