MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4391368252 · doi:10.2196/47570

How to Identify e-Cigarette Brands Available in the United States During 2020-2022: Development and Usability Study

2024· article· en· W4391368252 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Shaoying Ma, Aadeeba Kaareen, Hojin Park, Yanyun He, Shuning Jiang, Zefeng Qiu, Zidian Xie, Dongmei Li, Jian Chen, Richard J. O’Connor, Geoffrey T. Fong, Ce Shang

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSmoking Behavior and Cessation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooOntario Institute for Cancer Research
FundersCenter for Tobacco ProductsUniversity of ChicagoBooth School of Business, University of ChicagoNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of HealthPelotoniaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchOhio State University
KeywordsUsabilityWeb usabilityComputer scienceHuman–computer interaction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Prior studies have demonstrated that the e-cigarette market contains a large number of brands. Identifying these existing e-cigarette brands is a key element of market surveillance, which will further assist in policy making and compliance checks. OBJECTIVE: To facilitate the surveillance of the diverse product landscape in the e-cigarette market, we constructed a semantic database of e-cigarette brands that have appeared in the US market as of 2020-2022. METHODS: In order to build the brand database, we searched and compiled e-cigarette brands from a comprehensive list of retail channels and sources, including (1) e-liquid and disposable brands sold in web-based stores, (2) e-cigarette brands sold in brick-and-mortar stores and collected by the Nielsen Retail Scanner Data, (3) e-cigarette brands compiled by Wikipedia, (4) self-reported e-cigarette brands from the 2020 International Tobacco Control Four-Country Smoking and Vaping (ITC 4CV) US survey, and (5) e-cigarette brands on Twitter. We also estimated the top 5 e-cigarette brands by sales volume in brick-and-mortar stores, by the frequency and variety of offerings in web-based shops, and by the frequency of self-reported brands from the 2020 ITC 4CV US survey. RESULTS: As of 2020-2022, a total of 912 e-cigarette brands have been sold by various retail channels. During 2020-2022, the top 5 brands are JUUL, vuse, njoy, blu, and logic in brick-and-mortar stores; blu, king, monster, twist, and air factory for e-liquids in web-based stores; hyde, pod mesh, suorin, vaporlax, and xtra for disposables sold in web-based stores; and smok, aspire, vaporesso, innokin, and eleaf based on self-reported survey data. CONCLUSIONS: As the US Food and Drug Administration enforces the premarket tobacco market authorization, many e-cigarette brands may become illegal in the US market. In this context, how e-cigarette brands evolve and consolidate in different retail channels will be critical for understanding the regulatory impacts on product availability. Our semantic database of e-cigarette brands can serve as a useful tool to monitor product and marketplace development, conduct compliance checks, assess manufacturers' marketing behaviors, and identify regulatory impacts.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.042
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.071

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.042
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.002
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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.348 · 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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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