RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Prior studies have demonstrated that the e-cigarette market contains a large number of brands. Identifying these existing e-cigarette brands is a key element of market surveillance, which will further assist in policy making and compliance checks. OBJECTIVE: To facilitate the surveillance of the diverse product landscape in the e-cigarette market, we constructed a semantic database of e-cigarette brands that have appeared in the US market as of 2020-2022. METHODS: In order to build the brand database, we searched and compiled e-cigarette brands from a comprehensive list of retail channels and sources, including (1) e-liquid and disposable brands sold in web-based stores, (2) e-cigarette brands sold in brick-and-mortar stores and collected by the Nielsen Retail Scanner Data, (3) e-cigarette brands compiled by Wikipedia, (4) self-reported e-cigarette brands from the 2020 International Tobacco Control Four-Country Smoking and Vaping (ITC 4CV) US survey, and (5) e-cigarette brands on Twitter. We also estimated the top 5 e-cigarette brands by sales volume in brick-and-mortar stores, by the frequency and variety of offerings in web-based shops, and by the frequency of self-reported brands from the 2020 ITC 4CV US survey. RESULTS: As of 2020-2022, a total of 912 e-cigarette brands have been sold by various retail channels. During 2020-2022, the top 5 brands are JUUL, vuse, njoy, blu, and logic in brick-and-mortar stores; blu, king, monster, twist, and air factory for e-liquids in web-based stores; hyde, pod mesh, suorin, vaporlax, and xtra for disposables sold in web-based stores; and smok, aspire, vaporesso, innokin, and eleaf based on self-reported survey data. CONCLUSIONS: As the US Food and Drug Administration enforces the premarket tobacco market authorization, many e-cigarette brands may become illegal in the US market. In this context, how e-cigarette brands evolve and consolidate in different retail channels will be critical for understanding the regulatory impacts on product availability. Our semantic database of e-cigarette brands can serve as a useful tool to monitor product and marketplace development, conduct compliance checks, assess manufacturers' marketing behaviors, and identify regulatory impacts.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: From 2016 to 2021, the volume of peer-reviewed publications related to tobacco has experienced a significant increase. This presents a considerable challenge in efficiently summarizing, synthesizing, and disseminating research findings, especially when it comes to addressing specific target populations, such as the LGBTQ+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, asexual, Two Spirit, and other persons who identify as part of this community) populations. OBJECTIVE: In order to expedite evidence synthesis and research gap discoveries, this pilot study has the following three aims: (1) to compile a specialized semantic database for tobacco policy research to extract information from journal article abstracts, (2) to develop natural language processing (NLP) algorithms that comprehend the literature on nicotine and tobacco product use among sexual and gender diverse populations, and (3) to compare the discoveries of the NLP algorithms with an ongoing systematic review of tobacco policy research among LGBTQ+ populations. METHODS: We built a tobacco research domain-specific semantic database using data from 2993 paper abstracts from 4 leading tobacco-specific journals, with enrichment from other publicly available sources. We then trained an NLP model to extract named entities after learning patterns and relationships between words and their context in text, which further enriched the semantic database. Using this iterative process, we extracted and assessed studies relevant to LGBTQ+ tobacco control issues, further comparing our findings with an ongoing systematic review that also focuses on evidence synthesis for this demographic group. RESULTS: In total, 33 studies were identified as relevant to sexual and gender diverse individuals' nicotine and tobacco product use. Consistent with the ongoing systematic review, the NLP results showed that there is a scarcity of studies assessing policy impact on this demographic using causal inference methods. In addition, the literature is dominated by US data. We found that the product drawing the most attention in the body of existing research is cigarettes or cigarette smoking and that the number of studies of various age groups is almost evenly distributed between youth or young adults and adults, consistent with the research needs identified by the US health agencies. CONCLUSIONS: Our pilot study serves as a compelling demonstration of the capabilities of NLP tools in expediting the processes of evidence synthesis and the identification of research gaps. While future research is needed to statistically test the NLP tool's performance, there is potential for NLP tools to fundamentally transform the approach to evidence synthesis.
