Addressing Cardiovascular Toxicity Risk of Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems in the Twenty-First Century: “What Are the Tools Needed for the Job?” and “Do We Have Them?”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cigarette smoking is positively and robustly associated with cardiovascular disease (CVD), including hypertension, atherosclerosis, cardiac arrhythmias, stroke, thromboembolism, myocardial infarctions, and heart failure. However, after more than a decade of ENDS presence in the U.S. marketplace, uncertainty persists regarding the long-term health consequences of ENDS use for CVD. New approach methods (NAMs) in the field of toxicology are being developed to enhance rapid prediction of human health hazards. Recent technical advances can now consider impact of biological factors such as sex and race/ethnicity, permitting application of NAMs findings to health equity and environmental justice issues. This has been the case for hazard assessments of drugs and environmental chemicals in areas such as cardiovascular, respiratory, and developmental toxicity. Despite these advances, a shortage of widely accepted methodologies to predict the impact of ENDS use on human health slows the application of regulatory oversight and the protection of public health. Minimizing the time between the emergence of risk (e.g., ENDS use) and the administration of well-founded regulatory policy requires thoughtful consideration of the currently available sources of data, their applicability to the prediction of health outcomes, and whether these available data streams are enough to support an actionable decision. This challenge forms the basis of this white paper on how best to reveal potential toxicities of ENDS use in the human cardiovascular system—a primary target of conventional tobacco smoking. We identify current approaches used to evaluate the impacts of tobacco on cardiovascular health, in particular emerging techniques that replace, reduce, and refine slower and more costly animal models with NAMs platforms that can be applied to tobacco regulatory science. The limitations of these emerging platforms are addressed, and systems biology approaches to close the knowledge gap between traditional models and NAMs are proposed. It is hoped that these suggestions and their adoption within the greater scientific community will result in fresh data streams that will support and enhance the scientific evaluation and subsequent decision-making of tobacco regulatory agencies worldwide. Models for Cardiovascular Toxicity Testing E-cigarettes and nicotine delivery systems can be examined using multiple model systems. In silico models might predict adverse cardiovascular effects that can be screened for using 2-D and 3-D models using induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC) derived cardiac tissue and “omics” profiling such as single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) or high-throughput functional analysis with a multiple electrode array (MEA). Biologic plausibility of detected effects can be corroborated using ex vivo or in vivo models, which may also lead to the discovery of new biomarkers or treatments for CVD.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".