The Effects of Habitual Non-Tobacco Nicotine Consumption on Resting Autonomic Cardiovascular Control in Young Adults: A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: E-cigarettes and oral nicotine pouches (ONPs) have gained popularity among non-smoking young adults. While the health and cardiovascular consequences of long-term tobacco smoking are well-established, the potential shorter-term effects of non-tobacco nicotine remain unknown. Objectives: To investigate whether non-tobacco nicotine products (e-cigarettes, ONPs) impact cardiovascular markers of autonomic nervous system (ANS) regulation in young adults, and whether a 24-hour nicotine abstinence period could restore physiological responses comparable to controls. Methods: To date, twenty control (CTRL: 10m:10f, 20.8+0.9 years old) and 3 nicotine-using (NIC: 2m:1f, 21.7+1.5 years old; 1-8 years) participants have completed two in-lab visits separated by a one-week monitoring period, with NIC completing an additional third visit following 24-hours of nicotine abstinence (ABS). In-lab visits comprised normal and paced-breathing measurements of heart rate (HR), HR variability (HRV), and blood pressure (BP). Nicotine consumption history and recent exposure were quantified through self-report and urinalysis of nicotine and cotinine by liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry, respectively. Results: At this time of interim analysis, HR was elevated in NIC (n=3) (81.2±18.3 bpm) vs CTRL (n=19) (70.5±10.7 bpm). HRV, e.g. through standard deviation of normal inter-beat intervals (SDNN), was lower in NIC (n=3) (46.9±11.9 ms) vs CTRL (n=18) (63.0±25.1 ms). BP was elevated in NIC (n=3) (125.9+17.0 mmHg) vs CTRL (n=19) (114.3+4.9 mmHg). Cardiovascular indices partially normalized towards control values post-24h nicotine abstinence in NIC. NIC (n=3) had higher nicotine (360+375 ng/mL) and cotinine (844+424 ng/mL) concentrations vs CTRL (n=5) (<13.8 ng/mL for both), with marked reductions following ABS. Conclusion: Preliminary findings suggest non-tobacco nicotine use is associated with altered cardiovascular function in young adults, underscoring the need for further research into non-tobacco nicotine product health effects. Participant recruitment and testing are ongoing to reach an n=20 per group.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".