Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38861317›Full record

ArticleCancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology2024

Assessing the Relationship between Biomarkers of Exposure and Biomarkers of Potential Harm: PATH Study Wave 1 (2013 to 2014).

Cindy M Chang, Sapna Thakur, Ruben Montes de Oca, Brian L Rostron, Yu-Ching Cheng, M Jerry Wright, Dana M van Bemmel, Lanqing Wang, Dorothy K Hatsukami

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Cindy M ChangCenter for Tobacco Products, Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland.ORCID 0000-0002-2103-8222
Sapna ThakurCenter for Tobacco Products, Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland.ORCID 0000-0002-6254-894X
Ruben Montes de OcaCenter for Tobacco Products, Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland.ORCID 0009-0000-7494-4897
Brian L RostronCenter for Tobacco Products, Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland.ORCID 0000-0002-1715-0545
Yu-Ching ChengCenter for Tobacco Products, Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland.ORCID 0009-0001-8279-4857
M Jerry WrightCenter for Tobacco Products, Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland.ORCID 0000-0003-4073-0991
Dana M van BemmelCenter for Tobacco Products, Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland.ORCID 0009-0005-0983-8824
Lanqing WangUS Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.ORCID 0000-0001-6620-7096
Dorothy K HatsukamiMasonic Cancer Center, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota.ORCID 0000-0002-1108-2609

Funding

Center for Tobacco Products (CTP)Intramural FDA HHS FD999999NIDA NIH HHS HHSN271201100027CNIDA NIH HHS HHSN271201600001C
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe adequacy of biomarkers of potential harm (BOPH) for assessing tobacco products was explored based on their ability to distinguish tobacco use from non-use, change with cessation, and to show biological gradient.

methodsThe sample included individuals with biomarker data in wave 1 of the Population Assessment of Tobacco Health study who never used tobacco, currently smoke cigarettes exclusively, used to smoke cigarettes exclusively (quit in past 12 months), currently use smokeless tobacco exclusively, and currently use e-cigarettes exclusively. We compared BOPH levels between groups and assessed the relationships between log-transformed biomarkers of exposure [BOE; total nicotine equivalents including seven nicotine metabolites (TNE-7), 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanonol (NNAL), N-acetyl-S-(2-cyanoethyl)-L-cysteine, 1-hydroxypyrene, cadmium, and serum cotinine (SCOT)], and BOPH [high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP), interleukin-6 (IL-6), fibrinogen, soluble intercellular adhesion molecule-1 (sICAM-1), and 8-isoprostane].

resultsAmong people who smoke, both sICAM-1 and 8-isoprostane distinguished smoking from non-use and were associated with all six BOE. Among people who use smokeless tobacco, 8-isoprostane was associated with TNE-7 and NNAL whereas hs-CRP was associated with SCOT. Among people who use e-cigarettes, no associations between BOPH and BOE were observed.

conclusionsBoth sICAM-1 and 8-isoprostane may be useful for assessing the use or changes in use of some tobacco products. Studies examining their predictive validity could further strengthen our understanding of these two biomarkers. IMPACT: We found that two biomarkers of potential harm, soluble intercellular adhesion molecule-1 and 8-isoprostane, may have utility in studies assessing the potential harm of tobacco use in absence of long-term epidemiological studies.

Indexed as

BiomarkersAdultElectronic Nicotine Delivery SystemsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNicotineTobacco, SmokelessYoung AdultBiomarkersNicotine

Identifiers

PMID38861317
PMCPMC11293985

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.