MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400599518 · doi:10.1093/ntr/ntae173

The Public Health Impact of a Ban on Flavored Cigars: A Decision-Theoretic Policy Framework

2024· article· en· W4400599518 on OpenAlexafffund
David T. Levy, Christopher J. Cadham, Yoonseo Mok, Nargiz Travis, James Buszkiewicz, Jihyoun Jeon, Nancy L. Fleischer, Rafael Meza

Bibliographic record

VenueNicotine & Tobacco Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSmoking Behavior and Cessation
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer FoundationUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCenter for Tobacco ProductsCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of HealthNational Cancer InstituteU.S. Food and Drug AdministrationPharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America Foundation
KeywordsMentholFlavorEnforcementAdvertisingTobacco controlBusinessEnvironmental healthPublic healthToxicologyMedicineFood scienceChemistryPolitical scienceLawBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Half of adult cigar users report flavored cigars as their usual brand. The Food and Drug Administration proposed prohibiting "all characterizing flavors in cigars" and "menthol… in cigarettes." We provide evidence on cigar and cigarette transitions and a framework to assess the impact of a U.S. flavored cigar ban. AIMS AND METHODS: Using Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health survey waves 1-4, we estimated use patterns and annual transitions among flavored cigars, non-flavored cigars, cigarettes, and among adults aged 18-34 and aged ≥35. We also consider electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS)-related transitions. We developed a decision-theoretic framework for examining the impact of a flavored cigar ban alone, and the impact of a flavored cigar with a menthol cigarette ban with and without a non-tobacco flavored ENDS ban. RESULTS: Cigar users exhibited less stable use than cigarette users, with a large portion of cigar users switching to cigarette use each year. Past studies provide limited information on transitions between cigar and ENDS use. Our policy framework suggests that imposing a flavored cigar ban alone may be partially undermined by the substitution of menthol cigarettes for flavored cigars. While adding a menthol cigarette to a flavored cigar ban is expected to improve public health, a simultaneously implemented ENDS may offset some of the gains. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis suggests the information necessary to gauge the public health impact of a cigar flavor ban alone and with flavor bans on cigarettes and ENDS. Further research is needed on ENDS vis-a'-vis cigar use, and the impact of enforcement and non-flavor-related policies on flavor ban effectiveness. IMPLICATIONS: Unlike menthol cigarette use and menthol bans, flavored cigar use and flavored cigar bans have received minimal attention. Transitions from cigars, especially dual and flavored use, are generally common compared to cigarettes. Our policy framework suggests important public health impacts. A flavored cigar ban absent a menthol cigarette ban may be partially undermined by the substitution of menthol cigarettes for flavored cigars. Adding a menthol cigarette ban is expected to offset such substitution and improve public health. However, simultaneously adding an ENDS with a flavored cigar and menthol cigarette ban may reduce the public health impact of a menthol cigarette and cigar flavor ban since flavored cigar users would be less able to substitute a lower-risk alternative.

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)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.070

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0050.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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 head0.113
GPT teacher head0.498
Teacher spread0.385 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNicotine & Tobacco ResearchSame topicSmoking Behavior and CessationFrench-language works237,207