Do sociodemographic risk profiles for adolescents engaging in weekly e-cigarette, cigarette, and dual product use differ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: E-cigarette use represents a contemporary mode of nicotine product use that may be changing the risk profile of participating adolescents. Understanding differences in sociodemographic characteristics of adolescents engaging in contemporary e-cigarette use and traditional cigarette use is important for effectively developing and targeting public health intervention programs. The objective of this study was to identify and compare sociodemographic risk profiles for exclusive e-cigarette use and dual-product use among a large sample of Canadian youth. METHODS: A survey of 46,666 secondary school students in the 2021-22 wave of the COMPASS study measured frequency of past month e-cigarette and cigarette use as well as age, sex, gender, racial or ethnic background, spending money, relative family affluence, and having one's own bedroom. Rates of cigarette-only, e-cigarette-only, and dual product use were calculated, and separate classification trees were run using the CART algorithm to identify sociodemographic risk profiles for weekly dual-product use and weekly e-cigarette-only use. RESULTS: Over 13% of adolescents used only e-cigarettes at least weekly, 3% engaged in weekly dual e-cigarette and cigarette use, and less than 0.5% used only cigarettes. Available spending money was a common predictor of dual-product and e-cigarette-only use. Gender diverse youth and youth with lower perceived family affluence were at higher risk for dual-product use, while white and multiethnic adolescents were at greater risk of e-cigarette-only use. Two high-risk profiles were identified for e-cigarette-only use and four high-risk profiles were identified for dual product use. CONCLUSIONS: This study used a novel modelling approach (CART) to identify combinations of sociodemographic characteristics that profile high-risk groups for exclusive e-cigarette and dual-product use. Unique risk profiles were identified, suggesting that e-cigarettes are attracting new demographics of adolescents who have not previously been considered as high-risk for traditional cigarette use.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".