Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 10

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 39 of the 39 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Biochemical validation of self-reported electronic nicotine delivery system and tobacco heaviness of use.

Addicott, Merideth A., Sutfin, Erin L., Reynolds, Lindsay M., Donny, Eric C., Matich, Eryn K., Hsu, Ping-Ching·2023·Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology

Abstract

= 30) who currently use ENDS and other tobacco products completed a detailed tobacco use history, timeline follow-back, and an ENDS topography session. We evaluated the self-reports of own-brand ENDS use and tested correlations to determine which self-report measures of own-brand use, and which self-reported measures of puff topography, had the strongest correlations with urine and/or blood biomarkers of nicotine use. Participants reported using a variety of different ENDS devices and had a range of usage. The sum of the self-reported number of occasions or hours of ENDS use, along with the number of cigarettes and other tobacco products used, over the past 24 hr was significantly correlated with plasma cotinine levels. Puff topography measures correlated with increased nicotine concentrations, although participants underestimated the number of puffs they took during the topography session. This study provides preliminary evidence that summing together the hours of ENDS use, or the number of occasions of ENDS use, in addition to the number of other tobacco products used (i.e., cigarettes) based on self-report may be an accurate method of quantification. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/pha0000604

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Zhuikova E, Durrant P, Macauley E, Goss H, Goldsmith N, Ioannides C, Marczylo T & Bailey A (2019). Monitoring the transition from cigarette smoking to electronic cigarette use: Nicotine intake, psychometric, and clinical outcomes. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 85: 1627– 1628.

Cited by

See all 10

Metadata

Authors
Addicott, M. A., Sutfin, E. L., Reynolds, L. M., Donny, E. C., Matich, E. K., & Hsu, P.-C.
Venue
Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology
Published
2023-06
Volume
31
Issue
3
Pages
715-723
ISSN
  • 1936-2293
  • 1064-1297
Cited by
10
References
39
Language
en
Funders
  • University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences
  • National Institutes of Health (P30 DA012393)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.