ArticleDrug and alcohol dependence2025
Dose by design: How limits on nicotine flux and puff duration affect the abuse liability of electronic nicotine delivery systems.
Article in Drug and alcohol dependence, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Standardized research electronic cigarette acceptability among adult men and women who smoke combustible cigarettes.Psychology of addictive behaviors : journal of the Society of Psychologists in Addictive Behaviors · 2025Trial
- Assessing the abuse liability of U.S. Food and Drug Administration-authorized electronic nicotine delivery systems: Impact of nicotine flux, flavor, and menthol cigarette smoking status.Experimental and clinical psychopharmacology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionElectronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) product standards for nicotine flux (nicotine emitted/second), combined with limiting puff duration, could control nicotine dose and support ENDS regulations. We assessed behavioral and subjective abuse liability indices for ENDS varying in nicotine flux with fixed puff duration among people who smoke.
methodsThis within-subjects study included 32 adults who smoked cigarettes. Own-brand cigarettes (OB) and four unflavored ENDS were evaluated: no-flux (0μg/s), low-flux (36.01μg/s), cigarette-like-flux (90.03μg/s), and high-flux (180.06μg/s), with ENDS puff duration limited to 2s. Outcomes from behavioral economic choice tasks included demand intensity (drug purchase task [DPT]), cross-price elasticity (cross-product DPT), puffs earned (progressive ratio task [PRT]), and breakpoint (cross-product PRT). Subjective effects were nicotine abstinence symptoms (NAS), aversive effects, product liking, and sensation. Condition differences were analyzed using linear mixed models.
resultsAll ENDS were associated with significantly lower demand intensity, puffs earned, NAS suppression, and liking compared to OB, yet would serve as OB substitutes. Low-flux ENDS were a significantly stronger OB substitute than cigarette-like-flux ENDS, and were associated with more puffs earned than no and high-flux ENDS. Compared with other ENDS, high-flux ENDS generally reduced NAS more, were less pleasant, tasted worse and produced more intense harshness/irritancy and throat hit.
conclusionsENDS abuse liability and substitution potential varies by nicotine dose, which could be controlled via product standards integrating nicotine flux and puff duration. ENDS that exceed a cigarette nicotine dose may not be necessary to encourage transition from cigarettes to ENDS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.