Abuse Liability Assessment of the RELX Infinity <sup>®</sup> Electronic Nicotine Delivery System Among Adult Smokers and Electronic Nicotine Delivery System Users
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Rationale Nicotine pharmacokinetics and subjective effects are important factors in assessing the abuse liability of tobacco products such as electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS). In addition, an abuse liability determination is informative in assessing the ability of ENDS to support switching from cigarette smoking. Objectives To assess nicotine pharmacokinetics, subjective effects, and short-term safety profiles of the RELX Infinity ENDS compared with other tobacco/nicotine products among current smokers and ENDS users. Methods Two similar but independent studies were conducted to assess the abuse liability of Infinity tobacco-and menthol-flavored ENDS compared with combustible cigarettes and nicotine replacement therapy gum in smokers and compared with usual brand ENDS in ENDS users. Results In smokers, nicotine delivery (in terms of C max and AUC) from both Infinity ENDS flavors was lower than that from combustible cigarettes but higher than that from nicotine gum. Use of Infinity ENDS robustly reduced urges to smoke and elicited subjective effects such as satisfaction which were intermediate to those of cigarettes and nicotine gum. In ENDS users, Infinity ENDS delivered nicotine comparably to subjects’ usual brand ENDS and elicited generally similar subjective effects. Conclusions The abuse liability of two flavors of the RELX Infinity ENDS is lower than that of combustible cigarettes, higher than that of nicotine gum, and similar to that of other ENDS products. This supports a potential positive role in tobacco harm reduction, by providing smokers with a satisfying alternative to combustible cigarettes which could support switching away from smoking to a degree better than the support provided by nicotine gum while presenting a lower initiation/addiction risk among nicotine non-users than currently marketed tobacco products.
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 | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".