Recent trends in sales of electronic nicotine devices and oral nicotine pouches by flavour
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The landscape of tobacco and nicotine delivery products has rapidly evolved with the introduction of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDSs) and oral nicotine pouches (ONPs). Understanding sales trends and flavour preferences is critical for assessing these products' public health impact and informing regulatory strategies. OBJECTIVE: To characterise recent trends in US sales of ENDS and ONPs from 2018 to 2023, overall and by flavour. METHODS: Information Resources retail sales data covering 40 states from 7 January 2018 to 16 July 2023, were used to document trends in ENDS and ONP sales from brick-and-mortar retailers, by product flavour (non-menthol, mint/menthol and tobacco/unflavoured) in 4 week periods. RESULTS: ENDS and ONP sales have shown significant growth, with notable fluctuations coinciding with public health concerns and regulatory announcements. Specifically, non-menthol flavoured ENDS initially experienced a decline in sales following regulatory actions in early 2020 but strongly rebounded thereafter. Meanwhile, ONP sales have increased steadily, dominated by mint/menthol flavours. These trends may reflect consumer flavour preferences as well as manufacturers' strategic responses to policy changes. Sensitivity analyses using more recent sales data from 24 states confirm that these patterns persist. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in ENDS and ONP sales trends by flavour type underscore the importance of ongoing, detailed monitoring of nicotine product sales and use, to clarify public health implications and guide regulation. Given the growing variety of nicotine and tobacco products available today, tobacco regulatory frameworks must consider trends across this rapidly evolving market to understand and mitigate associated public health risks.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".