Cigarette and ENDS dual use longitudinal transitions among adults in the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study, Waves 4–5 (2016–2019)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The study assessed longitudinal transitions among adult (18 and older) past 30-day daily and non-daily dual users of cigarettes and electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS). Methods: Using data from Wave 4 (W4; 2016/17) and Wave 5 (W5; 2018/19) of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study, a nationally representative, longitudinal cohort study of US adults, multivariable regressions were conducted among W4 dual users of cigarettes and ENDS to examine past 30-day cigarette smoking at W5. The study also analyzed changes in frequency of past 30-day smoking and cigarettes smoked per day between W4 and W5, stratified by W4/W5 daily/non-daily ENDS use among W4 daily and non-daily cigarette smokers. Results: Among W4 dual users, those smoking daily and using ENDS non-daily had higher odds of daily cigarette smoking at W5 than daily users of both products (AOR: 2.32, 95 % CI: 1.38-3.90). W4 daily smokers who used ENDS daily at Wave 5 smoked cigarettes on fewer days at Wave 5 than W4 daily smokers who were either daily ENDS users at Wave 4 (B = -4.59; SE = 1.43, p < 0.01) or non-daily ENDS users at Wave 4 (B = -4.55; SE = 1.24, p < 0.001). Among W4 non-daily cigarette smokers, W4 non-daily ENDS users who used daily at W5 smoked cigarettes on fewer days (B = -4.04, SE = 1.82) at W5 than those who were non-daily ENDS users at W4 and W5. Conclusions: Findings highlight the importance of frequency of ENDS use in reducing cigarette smoking and could inform smoking cessation interventions among daily cigarette smokers.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".