Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2023 May 11;18(5):e0285682. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0285682

Possible role of caffeine in nicotine use onset among early adolescents: Evidence from the Young Mountaineer Health Study Cohort

Alfgeir L Kristjansson 1,2,*, Steven M Kogan 3, Michael J Mann 4, Megan L Smith 4, Christa L Lilly 5, Jack E James 6
Editor: Tommaso Martino7
PMCID: PMC10174549  PMID: 37167246

Abstract

Background

Preventing nicotine use onset among children and youth is an important public health goal. One possible contributor that has received little empirical investigation is caffeine use. The goal of this study was to examine the possible contribution of caffeine to nicotine onset during early adolescence.

Methods

We used data from the Young Mountaineer Health Study Cohort. Survey data were collected from 1,349 (response rate: 80.7%) 6th grade students (mean age at baseline 11.5 years) in 20 middle schools in West Virginia during the fall of 2020 and spring of 2021. We limited our analyses to students reporting never having used any form of nicotine at baseline. Logistic regression was employed in analyses.

Results

Approximately 8% of participants reported having used nicotine at least once between baseline and the follow-up, and 4.7% reported solely using electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) and no other forms of nicotine. In multivariable analyses, we controlled for many environmental, social, and behavioral variables known to influence nicotine use such as alcohol use, peer substance use, and perceived access to nicotine. We formulated our main independent variable, caffeine consumption, as continuous deciles. Any nicotine use, as well as ENDS use only at follow-up, were modeled as dependent variables. Caffeine was significantly associated with nicotine use in both models with ORs of 1.15 (1.04–1.27) and 1.13 (1.00–1.28).

Conclusions

Caffeine consumption among 6th grade non-nicotine users was associated with nicotine use at approximately 6-months follow-up.

Introduction

Caffeine is the most widely consumed psychoactive substance in history [1]. Today, the majority of youth are regular consumers of caffeine-containing products, including soda, coffee, tea, candy, and increasingly, energy drinks, with many caffeinated products being directly marketed towards minors [24]. A recent review suggested that as many as 75% of children and adolescents aged 5–17 consume caffeine regularly [2]. Once ingested, caffeine is readily distributed throughout the body, exerting pharmacological actions at diverse sites, both centrally and peripherally [1]. Caffeine’s main mechanism of action is competitive blockade of the neuromodulator adenosine, with A1 and A2A receptors appearing to be primary targets [5, 6]. In addition to influencing functionally important interactions between adenosine and dopamine receptors, caffeine effects include increased neurotransmitter activity in the CNS (anti-somnolent effect), constriction of cerebral and coronary blood vessels, renal diuresis, respiratory bronchodilation, increased secretion of gastrointestinal acid, and increased secretion of the catecholamine stress hormones epinephrine and norepinephrine [5, 7].

Whereas most published research on caffeine concerns adults, studies are increasingly being directed at younger age groups [2]. For young adolescents, the onset of caffeine consumption may be uniquely detrimental due to ongoing neurodevelopmental maturation coupled with increased educational and social demands. An area of special concern is the role caffeine may have in promoting early onset of other substance use, including nicotine. Caffeine’s ability to stimulate dopamine release, a property shared with nicotine [8], suggests that caffeine may have the potential to augment the reinforcing and psychostimulant effects of nicotine. That possibility is all the more salient given that early nicotine use onset predicts later tobacco use [9] with younger age of onset strongly predicting future dependence [10]. For example, compared to onset at 14 years or older, first tobacco use at ≤ 13 years of age forecasts both current and daily cigarette smoking and other tobacco product use, as well as the development of nicotine dependence [11]. Early nicotine onset also predicts the development of various negative developmental outcomes among adolescents and emerging adults such as criminal behavior [12], poor academic achievement [13], and increased alcohol and other drug use [14].

Studies of older adolescents (e.g., high-school students) and young adults have revealed associations between caffeine consumption and smoking behavior, including both cigarettes and use of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) such as e-cigarettes and/or vaping pens [1517]. Two recent studies suggest that caffeine use by younger adolescents may also promote smoking behavior. First, a longitudinal study with middle school students [15] employed cross-lagged path models to prospectively test the association between total caffeine use and both cigarette smoking and ENDS use while controlling for reverse causation. Caffeine use was prospectively associated with both cigarette smoking and ENDS use but the reverse was not true. However, nicotine onset was not tested specifically in that analysis. Second, a cross-sectional study [18] found a positive association between caffeine consumption and nicotine use while controlling for demographic/background variables, although a temporal association could not be investigated in that analysis. Furthermore, neither of those studies [15, 18] controlled for well-established covariates of nicotine use such as prior alcohol use, parental monitoring, perceived parental disapproval of substance use, and peer nicotine or substance use.

Considering the important role of dopamine in mediating the reward value of psychoactive drugs [19] and the fact that caffeine and nicotine both influence dopaminergic function, a connection between the two substances is biologically plausible. Research has repeatedly documented that early consumption of one habit forming substance tends to be linked with experimentation with and/or regular use of other substances, which may be caused by common biological and/or behavioral processes [10, 11, 20, 21]. The prevalence of caffeine consumption suggests that it may carry a uniquely heavy burden in the introduction of nicotine use among youth. This is especially relevant for new modes of nicotine ingestion such as via ENDS, which are increasingly prevalent [15]. However, to date, the prospective association between caffeine use and nicotine onset in young adolescents has not been tested empirically. Hence, the aim of the present study is to examine longitudinal associations between daily caffeine use and nicotine use onset among early adolescents while controlling for well-established social and behavioral covariates of nicotine use. We hypothesized that caffeine use at baseline would predict a greater likelihood of nicotine onset at follow-up.

Materials and methods

Sample and participants

The present analyses are based on the first two waves of survey data from the Young Mountaineer Health Study (YMHS) cohort. A single cohort of students enrolled in 20 geographically diverse public middle-schools in five counties in West Virginia are being followed twice per year from grades 6 through 8. Employing definition from the National Center for Educational Statistics, the schools include remote rural (1), distant rural (3), fringe rural (2), distant town (3), fringe town (1), small suburb (6), and small city (4) [16]. During the baseline assessment, from October—December 2020; 1,671 students attended regular school in either face-to-face or hybrid (part in person, part virtual) formats. Not included were participants who attended a virtual-only format, which in West Virginia was available only briefly as a limited option during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. Of the students attending some amount of in-person school, 1,349 (80.7%) completed the study survey (mean age at baseline: 11.5 years). A follow-up survey was conducted during April and May of 2021 using identical data collection protocols. At baseline, 1,187 participants reported never using any type of nicotine product in their lifetime. Those represent the sample for our analyses.

Procedure

The YMHS research team consists of the investigative team, study manager, three county data collection leaders (DCLs), and 20 supervising contact agents (SCAs, one in each school), to organize all data collection efforts. All five county Superintendents and twenty school principals approved participation in the study. Survey data collection was confidential, and protocols ensured anonymity of participants. No identifying information was collected. An introductory letter and/or email was sent to all parents and caregivers in September of 2020 to notify them about the study and provide an opportunity to opt their children out of participation and to put forth any questions or concern about the study. Consent procedures where explained and participants informed about their rights to deny participation without any repercussions. Data collection procedures utilize an honest-broker system to link individual data across study waves which secured individual confidentiality. Students responded to a confidential computer-based survey using Qualtrics software. The initial screen of the survey included a consent description and explained that continuing the survey indicated verbal consent to participate. Data collection was supervised by research staff. Students responded to the surveys either inside schools or during designated online classes from home with their camera turned on, depending on accessibility during COVID-19 mitigation efforts. The Institutional Review Board of West Virginia University approved all study protocols (#1903499093A001).

Measures

Dependent variables

Nicotine use at follow-up. Any form of nicotine use at follow-up was assessed with the following three questions: “In your lifetime, how many times have you smoked cigarettes (smoked a whole cigarette not just taken a puff)?”; “In your lifetime, how many times have you used e-cigarettes or vaping devices?” (i.e., ENDS); and “In your lifetime, how many times have you used other forms of tobacco that are not cigarettes or e-cigarettes (for example hookah, snuff, chewing tobacco)?” All questions were scored on a scale ranging from 1 = “Never” to 7 = “40 times or more often”. For the purpose of our analyses, we recoded the responses into two dichotomized variables. First, we coded any use at follow-up for any of the three types of nicotine variables (or combination thereof) as “1”, and no use (“never” to all three questions) as “0.” Second, we coded those solely reporting ENDS use at follow-up as “1”, and those who reported “never” for all other use were coded as 0. The second outcome variable therefore omits youth who reported using any other form of nicotine than ENDS at follow-up.

Independent variables

Caffeine consumption. The caffeine measure was designed to assess daily consumption from multiple types of beverages. This inventory has been previously validated in numerous publications [15, 22]. Respondents were asked, “How many cups/glasses/cans/or bottles do you usually drink every day of the following drinks?”: Coffee, Tea, Caffeinated soda (e.g., Cola drinks, Mountain Dew, Dr. Pepper), and Energy drinks that contain caffeine (e.g., Red Bull, Monster, Rockstar, Bolt, etc). Response options ranged from 1 = “None” to 7 = “6 glasses/cups/cans/bottles or more”. Participants were also asked: “How many caffeine "shots" (e.g., 5-Hour Energy) do you usually have each day?” and scored on the same scale as the previous four caffeine beverage questions. Each type of caffeine beverage was then weighted to reflect approximate proportional differences in caffeine content as reported previously [20, 2729]: coffee (6x), tea (3x), soda/pop (1x), energy drinks (3x), and caffeine shots (12x). A continuous variable was created by summing the weighted responses for all five caffeine questions and converting them into an estimation of milligrams per day. Due to the wide range (0 – 3000mg) and high negative skew, the continuous variable was recoded into deciles for simpler interpretation.

Control variables

In order to investigate the independent contribution of caffeine use, we controlled for factors associated with both nicotine onset and caffeine use including disrupted family structure [23], perceived parental disapproval/reactions to smoking and/or nicotine use [24], peer nicotine use and/or other substance use [25], perceived access to tobacco [26], parental tobacco use [27], and participant’s alcohol use [28]. Demographic covariates: Participant gender was assessed with the question: “How do you describe your gender?”, and the following four categories: 1 = “Boy”, 2 = “Girl”, 3 = “Gender Non-conforming”, 4 = “Other (Please specify)”. Due to low frequencies, groups 3 and 4 were merged as “other gender”. Family structure was assessed with a multiple-response string of questions pertaining to “Who lives in your household”. For the purpose of this analysis, this variable was coded into four levels with 1 = “Does not live with either biological parent”, 2 = “Lives with biological mother”, 3 = “Lives with biological father”, and 4 = “Lives with both biological parents”. Given the low numbers of non-white students in WV, race was coded with 1 = “White” and “Other”.

Social and behavioral covariates. Perceived parental reactions to alcohol, tobacco and other drug use was assessed with five questions headed by: “How do you think your parents/caregivers would react if you did any of the following?” followed by the items: “Smoked cigarettes”, “Got drunk”, “Used cannabis (marijuana)”, “Used E-cigarettes or other vaping devises” or “Used snuff, chewing tobacco or other tobacco inserted in mouth”. Responses ranged from 1 = “Totally against” to 4 = “They would not care”. Scores were summed to form a scale (α = .88). Peer substance use was assessed with six questions headed by: “How many of your friends?”, followed by the items: “Smoke cigarettes”, “Use E-cigarettes or other vaping devices”, “Drink Alcohol”, “Have become drunk”, “Use marijuana or other cannabis substances”, or “Use other drugs”. Response options ranged from 1 = “None” to 5 = “Almost all”. Scores were summed to form a scale (α = .84). Perceived access to nicotine was assessed with two questions headed with: “How easy or hard would it be for you to get the following drugs if you wanted to:”, followed by the items: “Cigarettes” and “E-cigarettes”. Responses ranged from 1 = “Very difficult” to 4 = “Very easy”. Responses were summed to form a scale (r = .60). Parental tobacco use was assessed with the following questions: “Do any of the following people use tobacco on a daily basis:”, followed by the items: “Mother/Stepmother” and “Father/Stepfather”. Any use by either mother or father was coded as 1. Participant alcohol use was assessed with a single question: “In your lifetime, how many times have you had a drink of alcohol of any kind, even just a few sips (e.g. beer, wine, spirits, shots)?” Responses ranged from 1 = “Never” to 7 = “40 times+”. For the purpose of our analyses, we recoded this variable with 0 = “Never”, and 1 = “Yes, once or more” (13.2%).

Table 1 includes descriptive statistics for all study variables.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics for all study variables (n = 1187).

Continuous Variables Mean (SD) Range
    Average caffeine consumption in mg/day at baseline 191.81 (301.64) 0–3000
    Perceived parental reactions to alcohol, tobacco, and other drug use (n = 970) 5.65 (1.94) 5–20
    Peer substance use (n = 988) 6.70 (2.04) 6–30
    Perceived access to nicotine (n = 962) 2.89 (1.61) 2–8
Categorical Variables N (%)
Any nicotine use at follow-up
    Yes 80 (8.09%)
    No 909 (91.91%)
Missing 198
ENDS use only at follow-up
    Yes 46 (4.66%)
    No 941 (95.34%)
Missing 200
Gender
    Girls 528 (46.11%)
    Boys 593 (51.79%)
    Other 24 (2.10%)
Missing 42
Race
    White 1038 (87.45%)
    Other 149 (2.55%)
Family Structure
    Does not live with biological parent 142 (11.96%)
    Lives with biological mother 362 (30.50%)
    Lives with biological father 78 (6.57%)
    Lives with both biological parents 605 (50.97%)
Any alcohol use at baseline
    Yes 156 (13.19%)
    No 1027 (86.81%)
Missing 4
Daily caffeine use at baseline*
    Coffee 335 (28.27%)
    Tea 603 (50.84%)
    Caffeinated soda 824 (69.48%)
    Energy drinks 111 (9.37%)
    Caffeine “shots” 113 (9.56%)
    No caffeine use 172 (14.49%)
Parental smoking at baseline
    Yes 424 (36.21%)
    No 747 (63.79%)
Missing 16
Among those who used any tobacco product at follow-up (n = 80),
what did they use?*
    Smoked cigarettes 22 (27.50%)
    E-cigarette/vaping 66 (83.54%)
    Other products 16 (20.00%)

*Multiple selections permitted

Analyses

Our analyses were limited to participants who reported never using any type of nicotine product at baseline. We began our analyses by assessing the frequency of any nicotine use at follow-up. We then assessed which type(s) of nicotine product(s) participants reported using at follow-up. Finally, we ran two multivariable logistic regression models. Both models included caffeine recoded into deciles and inserted into the model as a continuous variable. Model 1 included any form of nicotine as a dichotomized outcome variable, and Model 2 included ENDS use only as the dependent variable (i.e., those never-users at baseline who reported only having used ENDS at follow-up). Covariates were included in the model as factors if appropriate for the variable type (e.g., gender was categorized into three levels, with “girl” as the reference group).

Missing data analysis

The full data set included 16.7% missing values in our primary dependent variable, any nicotine use at follow-up. We examined whether this missingness was related to baseline demographic and predictor variables, including caffeine, gender, race, family structure group, baseline alcohol use, and parental smoking. Missing related to family structure (p = 0.005) and baseline parental smoking (p = 0.0002) with more missing data coming from respondents with at least one parent being a tobacco user and from respondents who did not live with both biological parents. However, both family structure and parental smoking were unrelated the outcomes in our multivariable analyses and were ultimately dropped from the analyses for model parsimony.

Results

As shown in Table 1, 8.1% of participants had used at least one type of nicotine at follow-up and 4.7% reported having solely used ENDS and no other forms of nicotine. This means that around 58% of all new nicotine users at follow-up had solely used ENDS and no other forms of nicotine. Further multiple-response analyses revealed that around 83.5% of nicotine users at follow-up reported having used ENDS devices at least once, 27.5% had smoked cigarettes at least once, and 20.0% reported using some other form of nicotine. Regarding daily caffeine consumption, the highest daily prevalence was observed for caffeinated soda, ~69.5%, followed by Tea, ~51%.

The first model included any form of nicotine as the outcome. As shown in Table 2, for each decile point increase in caffeine use the odds of nicotine onset increased by 15%. Among the covariates the strongest contribution was observed for perceived parental reactions to alcohol, tobacco or other drug use (ATOD) use with OR = 1.19 (95% CI: 1.08–1.31) and peer substance use with OR = 1.18 (95% CI: 1.08–1.28). The second model included exclusive ENDS use as the outcome (dual users of ENDS and other forms of nicotine, or sole users of other forms of nicotine were excluded in this analysis). As shown in Table 2, for each point increase in caffeine use the odds of ENDS use onset increased by 13%. Among the covariates the strongest contribution was observed for perceived parental reaction to ATOD use with OR = 1.18 (95% CI: 1.06–1.32) and any alcohol use at baseline with OR = 2.41 (95% CI: 1.16–5.03).

Table 2. Logistic regression models with odds ratios and 95% Confidence Intervals, n = 926.

Model 1, DV: Any Nicotine Use at Follow-up Model 2, DV: ENDS use only at Follow-up
Variables Exp (β) 95% CI P value Exp (β) 95% CI P value
Caffeine mg/day (deciles) 1.15 1.04, 1.27 0.003 1.13 1.00, 1.28 0.049
Covariates
Gender (ref = Girls)
    Boys 0.98 0.55, 1.74 0.571 1.36 0.64, 2.87 0.790
    Other 1.50 0.39, 5.66 0.526 2.33 0.52, 10.30 0.336
Race (ref = Other)
    White 0.52 0.26, 1.04 0.064 0.99 0.37, 2.61 0.987
Alcohol use at baseline (ref = No)
    Yes 1.33 0.69, 2.58 0.379 2.41 1.16, 5.03 0.018
    Perceived parental reactions to ATOD use 1.19 1.08, 1.31 0.0005 1.18 1.06, 1.32 0.002
    Peer substance use 1.18 1.08, 1.28 0.0001 1.08 0.97, 1.21 0.127
    Perceived access to nicotine 1.38 1.08, 1.28 <0.0001 1.18 1.06, 1.32 0.002

Discussion

In this study we analyzed two waves of survey data from a sample of 6th grade middle school students. Analyses were limited to students who reported having never used any type of nicotine product at baseline. At follow-up, approximately 8% of those students reported having used nicotine products at least once. The majority of those reported having used ENDS. Our primary question of interest was whether caffeine use at baseline was associated with nicotine use at follow-up. We modeled caffeine as a continuous variable by estimating mg/day and converting this variable into deciles in the analyses. We then modeled our outcome variables in two ways. First, as a composite measure of any form of nicotine use, including combustible cigarettes, ENDS, and both alternative tobacco (e.g., hookah) and smokeless tobacco. Second, given the popularity of ENDS as the primary mode of nicotine onset in young people [29], we also ran our models to include only ENDS use as the outcome variable. Our models also included a selection of control variables known to contribute to caffeine use and nicotine onset.

Results indicated that caffeine consumption among non-nicotine using 6th grade students was positively related to the odds of nicotine use 6 months later. More specifically, in both Models 1 and 2, the continuous measure of caffeine suggests that for each decile unit increase in caffeine use the subsequent risk of nicotine use 6 months later increased by 13–15%. This means that those close to the top of the range were ~2.5 times more likely than non-users of caffeine to have used nicotine at least once between baseline and follow-up. Further, consistent with recent studies, ENDS use was observed to be the dominant form of nicotine onset in our sample of 6th grade students.

In the United States, as in many affluent countries, the introduction of ENDS was followed by a rapid increase in use. Introduced around 2007, by 2014 ENDS had become the most commonly used nicotine products among young people in the country [29]. After declaring ENDS use an epidemic among youth, the US Surgeon General [29] called for curbs on the marketing of ENDS to young people and the implementation of strategies to limit youth access to them. To date, ENDS use have remained the dominant form of nicotine uptake among young people [29]. The fact that ENDS use is currently much more common among youth than other forms of nicotine use has led to concerns about a reverse in the battle against nicotine addiction in the general population. The specific concern that use of ENDS may be contributing to increased numbers of nicotine users among young people is heightened by recent findings that the social and risk profiles of youth who smoke cigarettes do not differ markedly from those who use ENDS [30, 31]. Those developments underscore the importance of clarifying the role of other contributing factors, such as caffeine, in the onset and continued use of nicotine products, especially ENDS use.

Overall, our findings suggest that caffeine use is substantially associated with early onset of nicotine use. The mechanisms of action for this effect, however, have yet to be confirmed. Caffeine affects adenosine receptors which may affect striatal pathways associated with the production of dopamine and reward sensitivity. This area of the brain is particularly responsive during early adolescence [32]. For young adolescents, caffeine may be experienced as particularly rewarding, reinforcing the use of nicotine to regulate mood and the potential for nicotine addiction. The effects of caffeine may also be related to stressors associated with the transition from elementary to middle school, particularly within large public schools [33]. Youth experience increased academic demands and changes in school structure and routine. Additionally, media use and delayed sleep preferences among adolescents affect the likelihood of sleep deprivation which may affect youths’ decisions to use both caffeine and nicotine. The finding that caffeine use was associated with both cigarette and ENDS use is additional suggestive confirmation of a biological basis for the widely reported association between caffeine and nicotine consumption.

Considering the ubiquity of caffeine [1], it is worth noting that caffeine consumption leads to physical dependence which is indicated by behavioral, physiological and subjective withdrawal effects (caffeine withdrawal syndrome). As few as eight hours of abstinence from regular intake may produce withdrawal symptoms, including sleepiness, lethargy, and headache [34, 35]. Referenced against standard criteria, principally those of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders [36], caffeine has been labelled a “drug of abuse” [37]. Moderate consumption by youth has been found to be associated with diverse negative effects, including headache, nausea, drowsiness, fatigue, concentration difficulties, disrupted sleep, impaired academic achievement, mood disturbances, and aggressive behavior [22, 38, 39]. In addition to those effects, findings from the present study establish caffeine as a potentially important, and until now largely unobserved, possible contributor to nicotine use in early adolescence. While not ignoring the plausibility of shared risk due to residual confounding, it is notable that previous analyses focused on frequency of nicotine use (rather than onset) that controlled for reverse causation suggest the link between caffeine and nicotine use among young adolescents likely is uni-directional [15]. Thus, increased arousal and alertness from caffeine’s anti-somnolent effects coupled with caffeine’s potential to augment the reinforcing and psychostimulant effects of nicotine may present a potent combination of effects for young adolescents coping with new and life challenges. Consequently, regular caffeine consumption, particularly during stressful periods of increased demands and responsibility typical of early adolescence, may contribute to the uptake and eventual regular use of nicotine.

Despite a number of strengths, our study also has some limitations. First, our sample is limited to 20 schools and five counties in West Virginia and may not be generalizable to other populations. Second, our sample was predominantly white/Caucasian. Third, our data relied solely on self-reports which are subject to recall bias. Fourth, our measurement of ENDS use did not distinguish between nicotine-bearing and non-nicotine bearing substances; neither did it preclude the possibility of cannabis use via ENDS. Future studies should be designed to assess such differences [40]. Fifth, although our measure of caffeine is comprehensive compared to most other studies of adolescent caffeine use, it did not include products known to include small amounts of caffeine, such as candy, chocolate, and yogurt. Finally, we did not collect data on where participants obtained the caffeine products they consumed (e.g., home or self-purchase). For example, outlets (e.g., stores and gas stations) from which caffeine products may have been purchased may also have nicotine advertisements and products on display. Exposure of that kind could be a factor in the consumption of nicotine products.

In conclusion, present findings add to growing evidence that early exposure to caffeine may increase the risk of early nicotine use. Rather than a single causal mechanism, multiple biological, behavioral, and social influences are likely to be involved. Both caffeine and nicotine influence dopaminergic function, which has an important role in determining the reward value of psychoactive drugs [20]. As such, early exposure to caffeine may serve to prime biological mechanisms that enhance the habit-forming potential of nicotine. In that context, the recent advent of highly concentrated caffeine products (e.g., caffeine “shots”) commonly marketed directly at youth, should be of particular concern. Unfortunately, the current popularity of caffeine may encourage complacency regarding its negative effects. Conversely, no one seriously questions the harm posed by nicotine-containing products [41]. Thus, confirmation that early caffeine exposure may promote subsequent nicotine use should give rise to concern and efforts to limit caffeine consumption among youth.

Supporting information

S1 Dataset

(CSV)

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

Research reported in this publication was supported National Institutes Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism of the National Institutes of Health under award number R01AA027241-01A1 (Kristjansson). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.James JE. Caffeine and Health London, UK: Academic Press; 1991. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Temple JL. Trends, Safety, and Recommendations for Caffeine Use in Children and Adolescents. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. 2019;58(1):36–45. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.James JE, Kristjansson AL, Sigfusdottir ID. A Gender-Specific Analysis of Adolescent Dietary Caffeine, Alcohol Consumption, Anger, and Violent Behavior. Substance Use & Misuse. 2015;50(2):257–67. doi: 10.3109/10826084.2014.977394 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Gallimberti L, Buja A, Chindamo S, Vinelli A, Lazzarin G, Terraneo A, et al. Energy drink consumption in children and early adolescents. European Journal of Pediatrics. 2013;172(10):1335–40. doi: 10.1007/s00431-013-2036-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Ferre S. Mechanisms of the psychostimulant effects of caffeine: implications for substance use disorders. Psychopharmacology. 2016;233(10):1963–79. doi: 10.1007/s00213-016-4212-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Dunwiddie TV, Masino S. A. The role and regulation of adenosine in the central nervous system. Annual Review of Neuroscience. 2001;24:31–55. doi: 10.1146/annurev.neuro.24.1.31 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Lane JD, Pieper CF, Phillips-Bute BG, Bryant JE, Kuhn CM. Caffeine affects cardiovascular and neuroendocrine activation at work and home. Psychosomatic Medicine. 2002;64(4):595–603. doi: 10.1097/01.psy.0000021946.90613.db [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Picciotto MR, Mineur YS. Nicotine, food intake, and activation of POMC neurons. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2013;38(1):545–553. doi: 10.1038/npp.2012.163 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Mallol J, Urrutia-Pereira M, Mallol-Simmonds MJ, Calderon-Rodriguez L, Osses-Vergara F, Matamala-Bezmalinovic A. Prevalence and Determinants of Tobacco Smoking Among Low-Income Urban Adolescents. Pediatric Allergy Immunology and Pulmonology. 2021;34(2):60–7. doi: 10.1089/ped.2021.0018 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Kendler KS, Myers J, Damaj MI, Chen X. Early Smoking Onset and Risk for Subsequent Nicotine Dependence: A Monozygotic Co-Twin Control Study. American Journal of Psychiatry. 2013;170(4):408–13. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2012.12030321 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Sharapova S, Reyes-Guzman C, Singh T, Phillips E, Marynak KL, Agaku I. Age of tobacco use initiation and association with current use and nicotine dependence among US middle and high school students, 2014–2016. Tobacco Control. 2020;29(1):49–54. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2018-054593 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Lantto J, Hakko H, Riala K, Riipinen P. Higher Levels of Nicotine Dependence in Adolescence are Associated with Younger Onset Age of Violent Criminality: A Follow-Up Study of Former Adolescent Psychiatric Inpatients. Journal of the Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. 2021;30(1):6–11. doi: 10.1177/1077559509332264. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Morin AJS, Rodriguez D, Fallu J-S, Maiano C, Janosz M. Academic achievement and smoking initiation in adolescence: a general growth mixture analysis. Addiction. 2012;107(4):819–28. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2011.03725.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Kristjansson AL, Mann MJ, Sigfusdottir ID. Licit and Illicit Substance Use by Adolescent E-Cigarette Users Compared with Conventional Cigarette Smokers, Dual Users, and Nonusers. Journal of Adolescent Health. 2015;57(5):562–4. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2015.07.014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Kristjansson AL, Kogan SM, Mann MJ, Smith ML, Juliano LM, James JE. Does early exposure to caffeine promote smoking and alcohol use behavior? A prospective analysis of middle school students. Addiction. 2018; 113:1706–1713. doi: 10.1111/add.14261 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) Locale Classifications and Criteria. National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). Updated February 25, 2022. Accessed May 24, 2022. https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/annualreports/topical-studies/locale/definitions
  • 17.Fagan MJ, Di Sebastiano KM, Qian W, Leatherdale S, Faulkner G. Coffee and cigarettes: Examining the association between caffeinated beverage consumption and smoking behaviour among youth in the COMPASS study. Preventive Medicine Reports. 2020;19:101148 doi: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2020.101148 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Mann MJ, Smith ML, Kristjansson AL. Energy drink consumption and substance use risk in middle school students. Preventive medicine reports. 2016;3:279–82. doi: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2016.03.014 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Treur JL, Taylor AE, Ware JJ, McMahon G, Hottenga J-J, Baselmans BML, et al. Associations between smoking and caffeine consumption in two European cohorts. Addiction. 2016;111(6):1059–68. doi: 10.1111/add.13298 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Tanda G, Goldberg SR. Alteration of the behavioral effects of nicotine by chronic caffeine exposure. Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior. 2000;66(1):47–64. doi: 10.1016/s0091-3057(00)00234-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.DuPont RL, Han B, Shea CL, Madras BK. Drug use among youth: National survey data support a common liability of all drug use. Preventive Medicine. 2018;113:68–73. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2018.05.015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.James JE, Kristjansson AL, Sigfusdottir ID. Adolescent substance use, sleep, and academic achievement: Evidence of harm due to caffeine. Journal of Adolescence. 2011;34(4):665–73. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2010.09.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Kristjansson AL, Sigfusdottir ID, Allegrante JP, Helgason AR. Social correlates of cigarette smoking among Icelandic adolescents: A population-based cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health. 2008;8:86. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-8-86 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Kristjansson AL, Sigfusdottir ID, James JE, Allegrante JP, Helgason AR. Perceived parental reactions and peer respect as predictors of adolescent cigarette smoking and alcohol use. Addictive Behaviors. 2010;35(3):256–9. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2009.10.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Henneberger AK, Mushonga DR, Preston AM. Peer Influence and Adolescent Substance Use: A Systematic Review of Dynamic Social Network Research. Adolescent Research Review. 2021;6(1):57–73. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Cochran SD, Grella CE, Mays VM. Do Substance Use Norms and Perceived Drug Availability Mediate Sexual Orientation Differences in Patterns of Substance Use? Results from the California Quality of Life Survey II. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs. 2012;73(4):675–85. doi: 10.15288/jsad.2012.73.675 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Mays D, Gilman SE, Rende R, Luta G, Tercyak KP, Niaura RS. Parental Smoking Exposure and Adolescent Smoking Trajectories. Pediatrics. 2014;133(6):983–991. doi: 10.1542/peds.2013-3003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Lee C-K, Corte C, Stein KF, Finnegan L, McCreary LL, Park CG. Expected Problem Drinker Possible Self: Predictor of Alcohol Problems and Tobacco Use in Adolescents. Substance Abuse. 2015;36(4):434–9. doi: 10.1080/08897077.2014.988323 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.General US. Surgeon General’s advisory on e-cigarette use among youth. Washington DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Surgeon General; 2018. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Burnell K, Kwiatek SM, Hoyle RH. Are Exclusive e-Cigarette Users Unique? Comparing Predictors of Exclusive e-Cigarette Use with Traditional Tobacco Use and Dual Use among US Adolescents. Substance Use & Misuse. 2021;56(6):905–10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Kristjansson AL, Mann MJ, Smith ML, Sigfusdottir ID. Social Profile of Middle School-Aged Adolescents Who Use Electronic Cigarettes: Implications for Primary Prevention. Prevention Science. 2018;19(6):805–12. doi: 10.1007/s11121-017-0825-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Galvan A. Adolescent development of the reward system. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 2010;4:116–24. doi: 10.3389/neuro.09.006.2010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Rudolph K. D., Lambert S. F., Clark A. G., Kurlakowsky K. D. Negotiating the transition to middle school: the role of selfregulatory processes. Child Development. 2001;72:929–46. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00325 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Juliano LM, Griffiths RR. A critical review of caffeine withdrawal: empirical validation of symptoms and signs, incidence, severity, and associated features. Psychopharmacology. 2004;176(1):1–29. doi: 10.1007/s00213-004-2000-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.James JE, Rogers PJ. Effects of caffeine on performance and mood: withdrawal reversal is the most plausible explanation. Psychopharmacology. 2005;182(1):1–8. doi: 10.1007/s00213-005-0084-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Association AP. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. Washington DC; 2013.
  • 37.Felix dos Santos MK, Gavioli EC, Rosa LS, Soares-Rachetti VdP, Lobao-Soares B. Craving espresso: the dialetics in classifying caffeine as an abuse drug. Naunyn-Schmiedebergs Archives of Pharmacology. 2018;391(12):1301–18. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Hering-Hanit R, Gadoth N. Caffeine-induced headache in children and adolescents. Cephalalgia. 2003;23(5):332–5. doi: 10.1046/j.1468-2982.2003.00576.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Juliano LM, Huntley ED, Harrell PT, Westerman AT. Development of the Caffeine Withdrawal Symptom Questionnaire: Caffeine withdrawal symptoms cluster into 7 factors. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 2012;124(3):229–34. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2012.01.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Keyes KM, Rutherford C, Miech R. Historical trends in the grade of onset and sequence of cigarette, alcohol, and marijuana use among adolescents from 1976–2016: Implications for “Gateway” patterns in adolescence. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 2019;194:51–58 doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2018.09.015 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Mishra A, Chaturvedi P, Datta S, Sinukumar S, Joshi P, Garg A. Harmful effects of nicotine. Indian Journal of Medical and Pediatric Oncology. 2015;36(1):24–31. doi: 10.4103/0971-5851.151771 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Maria Elisabeth Johanna Zalm

23 Nov 2022

PONE-D-22-23716Possible role of caffeine in nicotine use onset among early adolescents: Evidence from the Young Mountaineer Health Study CohortPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kristjansson,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Your manuscript has been assessed by one peer-reviewer and their report is appended below. 

The reviewer comments that the manuscript would benefit from more consistent use of terminology, and that some parts of the manuscript could be strengthened by some additional detail and/or clarification. In addition, the reviewer comments that some of the reported results do not appear to add up and that further clarification regarding the missing data is required. Furthermore, the reviewer suggests that the statistical analysis and discussions section requires further work.

In addition to the reviewer's concerns, the editorial office noted that the current study appears similar to your 2022 Preventative Medicine article "Caffeine consumption and onset of alcohol use among early adolescents" (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2022.107208). Specifically, the methodology section of both articles suggests that the same data set may have been used for both articles. This related article was not declared in the cover letter for this manuscript. Please clarify whether the same data set was used for both studies, and if so, please provide a detailed justification as to why this data set was separated into two separate, smaller studies, as opposed to presented as one larger manuscript.

Could you please revise the manuscript to carefully address the concerns raised?

Please note that we have only been able to secure a single reviewer to assess your manuscript. We are issuing a decision on your manuscript at this point to prevent further delays in the evaluation of your manuscript. Please be aware that the editor who handles your revised manuscript might find it necessary to invite additional reviewers to assess this work once the revised manuscript is submitted. However, we will aim to proceed on the basis of this single review if possible. 

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 07 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Maria Elisabeth Johanna Zalm, Ph.D

Editorial Office

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf   

2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information

3.  You indicated that you had ethical approval for your study. In your Methods section, please ensure you have also stated whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians of the minors included in the study or whether the research ethics committee or IRB specifically waived the need for their consent."

If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information.

4. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“Research reported in this publication was supported National Institutes Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism of the National Institutes of Health under award number R01AA027241-01A1 (Kristjansson). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.”

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

Additional Editor Comments:

The editorial office noted that the current study appears similar to your 2022 Preventative Medicine article "Caffeine consumption and onset of alcohol use among early adolescents" (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2022.107208). Specifically, the methodology section of both articles suggests that the same data set may have been used for both articles. This related article was not declared in the cover letter for this manuscript. Please clarify whether the same data set was used for both studies, and if so, please provide a detailed justification as to why this data set was separated into two separate, smaller studies, as opposed to presented as one larger manuscript, 

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This study utilized data from the Young Mountaineer Health Study Cohort to examine prospective associations between caffeine use and tobacco use at a 6-month follow-up among youth (mean age at baseline: 11.5 years).Strengths include a prospective cohort design that is able to capture new onset nicotine use, a relatively large analytic sample of youth (n=1187), and data are recent (2020-2021). This is overall a novel concept and worthy of publishing, but the manuscript needs substantial revisions.

Great job to authors! Specific comments below.

1. 2nd half of first paragraph in the Intro, starting at line 48 ("Caffeine's main mechanism of action...") - it would be helpful to add a sentence with a plain language summary of how these biological effects are relevant to the psychology of substance use. Consider how these effects may overlap with nicotine to prime the reader for the connection you will draw between the two substances.

2. Throughout the paper, authors use inconsistent terminology when referring to e-cigarettes, sometimes referring to them as e-cigs, sometimes as vaping, and sometimes as "e-cigarette and/or vaping" - choose one term, and just clarify in the Intro what you will call them

throughout the paper and stick to it.

3. In the "Sample and Participants" paragraph (page 5): "1,671 students attended school in either face-to-face or hybrid (part in person, part virtual) formats (i.e., not in virtual-only format) and thus were accessible to the study team." More details are needed here. Why were virtual-only students not accessible and how many were excluded? I also wonder whether schools in specific geographic regions (ex: remote rural or small city) were more or less likely to be virtual-only and thus be systematically excluded.

4. Did authors examine potential collinearity among the control variables? My concern is that the overlap in some of these variables may have led to overadjustment. Consider parsimony if there is little statistical rationale for keeping all of these covariates in the model.

5. In Table 1, Ns do not add up to total for most variables. For example, for the "Any nicotine use at follow-up" variable, n=80 were coded as Yes and n=909 were coded as No - these do not add up to the full N=1187. The same is true for: E-cigarette/Vaping only at follow-up, Gender, Any alcohol use at baseline, and Parental smoking at baseline. Please clarify whether these are missing data and add a footnote if so.

6. I think it would be worthwhile to show more info on types of caffeine consumed among the sample - what was the most common source? How many consumed more than one source? etc.

7. Did authors collect data on where participants were obtaining caffeine beverages from (e.g., from home, purchasing themselves)? If they were purchasing themselves from stores that have tobacco products on display, such as gas stations, it is possible that they also had greater exposure to tobacco advertisements.

8. Did authors collect data on duration of caffeine use? For example, if someone had been using caffeine regularly for a year vs. someone who had only been using for a couple months, would you expect their subsequent risk of nicotine use to differ?

9. Two regression models were run: 1) Any tobacco use vs. no tobacco use, and 2) Exclusive e-cig/vaping vs. no tobacco use. For Model 2, consider modeling the outcome as 3 levels: no nicotine use, vaping only, dual/poly use (i.e., vaping + some other nicotine product). This would help retain the sample size and would lend insight into whether there may be a dose-response relationship.

10. The Discussion could be strengthened by drawing more explicit connections between caffeine and nicotine - for example, an interesting point was raised that academic stressors increase from elementary to middle school (top of page 15), and the relevance of this point can be emphasized by showing that both substances can increase alertness and concentration, thus, both may be appealing/used in the same contexts to keep up with such academic stressors.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2023 May 11;18(5):e0285682. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0285682.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


26 Dec 2022

Manuscript PONE-D-22-23716

Editorial comments and our responses:

Comment 1: …the editorial office noted that the current study appears similar to your 2022 Preventative Medicine article "Caffeine consumption and onset of alcohol use among early adolescents" (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2022.107208). Specifically, the methodology section of both articles suggests that the same data set may have been used for both articles. This related article was not declared in the cover letter for this manuscript. Please clarify whether the same data set was used for both studies, and if so, please provide a detailed justification as to why this data set was separated into two separate, smaller studies, as opposed to presented as one larger manuscript.

Our Response: Thank you for this observation. Both the article that is being considered by PLOS One and the Preventive Medicine article are indeed from the same data set. These data are from on the Young Mountaineer Health Study (YMHS), a cohort study funded by NIAAA where we are following a single cohort of middle school students over three years. The study plan enables us to test multiple hypotheses, about nicotine/tobacco use, alcohol use, and other drug use, with multiple mediating and moderating variables and different analysis techniques. A protocol manuscript for the YMHS was recently published and is accessible here: https://www.researchprotocols.org/2022/8/e40451/PDF

The main reasons for two separate manuscripts about caffeine and alcohol/nicotine onset are both theoretical and practical.

First, nicotine is generally categorized as a stimulant. Alcohol, on the other hand, is primarily categorized as a depressant, although it is regarded as having stimulating properties in the early stages of drinking session. As such, the two drugs have different biological profiles. In addition, there tend to be differences in usage pattern. Nicotine often serves as the onset substance for early adolescents (average age in our sample is 11.5 years at Time 1), which is possibly a function of its ready availability in various forms, of which e-cigarettes and/or other vaping devices are currently the most common. The general decline in youth nicotine use in industrialized countries during the last 20 years is now threatened by the surge in use of these new products. West Virginia, where the YMHS sample is drawn, has typically experienced higher than average use of nicotine compared to other US States. The potential prospective impact of caffeine use on nicotine onset among early adolescents has not been previously studied in detail and warrants special attention. Youth alcohol use has also declined in industrialized countries, particularly during the last 10 years, but early onset of use is a marker of later use. Use of alcohol by youth tends to be strongly influenced by social setting, especially in relation to partying. Conversely, nicotine tends to be used across a wider range of social settings. Practically, discussing the relations between caffeine and nicotine/alcohol in two separate manuscripts enabled us to form the storyline and statistical tests in accordance with the difference in impact and social patterns of usage of the two drugs. We also felt that one manuscript would not give us sufficient space to adequately address the respective specific relationships that caffeine has with the other two drugs. Accordingly, we decided to submit a full-length manuscript for caffeine > nicotine onset, and another short communication manuscript for caffeine > alcohol onset.

Comment 2: Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming.

Our Response: We have been careful to follow all PLOS One style requirements, including those for file naming.

Comment 3: Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information

Our Response: Thank you. We have added further discussion concerning consent and IRB approval in the manuscript and the online submission information. We created a partnership with schools where the surveys were administered as a school-sponsored activity with two purposes. One was to provide basic epidemiological information for school health planning by participating schools. A secondary use was for research purposes. For research purposes, data was de-identified by an honest broker, then shared with the research team. This meant that the data, collected during the course of normal school activities, could not be linked to individual participants by the research team. Thus, for research purposes the data was essentially anonymous. This process was coupled with passive parental/caregiver consent procedures. Parents/caregivers received a take-home letter and an email describing the study and allowing parents to “opt out” their children. Informed consent from student participants was obtained, however, via a consent script on the opening survey screen which noted that continuing past that screen equaled consent to participate. Further, both prior introduction to the study at each school and the parent/caregiver communication (take-home letter and email), noted the rights of students to voluntarily participate or not, without any repercussion. Per our IRB requirement, the opening online survey screen also noted that students were not required to answer all questions, and that skipping questions or stopping participation during the survey, or refusing participation would have no consequences for them.

Comment 4: You indicated that you had ethical approval for your study. In your Methods section, please ensure you have also stated whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians of the minors included in the study or whether the research ethics committee or IRB specifically waived the need for their consent.

Our Response: Please see response to #3 above.

Comment 5: Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“Research reported in this publication was supported National Institutes Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism of the National Institutes of Health under award number R01AA027241-01A1 (Kristjansson). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.”

Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

Our Response: Thank you. The additional sentence has been added to the funding statement which now reads: “Research reported in this publication was supported National Institutes Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism of the National Institutes of Health under award number R01AA027241-01A1 (Kristjansson). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

Comment 6: Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Our Response: Thank you. The Role of Funder has been added to the cover letter (Our Response to Comment 5).

Comment 7: In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Our Response: We will abide by PLOS rules for data access and availability and submit the data files for publication as Supporting Information.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reviewer 1 comments and our responses:

Comment 1: 2nd half of first paragraph in the Intro, starting at line 48 ("Caffeine's main mechanism of action...") - it would be helpful to add a sentence with a plain language summary of how these biological effects are relevant to the psychology of substance use. Consider how these effects may overlap with nicotine to prime the reader for the connection you will draw between the two substances.

Our Response: As requested, new text has been added to the paragraph immediately following the paragraph highlighted by the reviewer, stating: “. . . caffeine’s ability to stimulate dopamine release, a property shared with nicotine [8], suggests that caffeine may have the potential to augment the reinforcing and psychostimulant effects of nicotine. That possibility is all the more salient given that . . .”

Comment 2: Throughout the paper, authors use inconsistent terminology when referring to e-cigarettes, sometimes referring to them as e-cigs, sometimes as vaping, and sometimes as "e-cigarette and/or vaping" - choose one term, and just clarify in the Intro what you will call them

throughout the paper and stick to it.

Our Response: These discrepancies have been remedied. Throughout the narrative we now refer to all e-cigarette use or vaping of nicotine as use of “electronic nicotine delivery systems” or “ENDS”. This is clarified in the Introduction section.

Comment 3: In the "Sample and Participants" paragraph (page 5): "1,671 students attended school in either face-to-face or hybrid (part in person, part virtual) formats (i.e., not in virtual-only format) and thus were accessible to the study team." More details are needed here. Why were virtual-only students not accessible and how many were excluded? I also wonder whether schools in specific geographic regions (ex: remote rural or small city) were more or less likely to be virtual-only and thus be systematically excluded.

Our Response: During the height of the COVID-19 pandemic and before vaccines became available, particularly in the fall of 2020 (vaccines did not become publicly available until early 2021), most WV counties operated their schools in three distinct ways (County Boards of Education represent the local authority for schools in each respective county): a) regular in-person school (albeit with many in-house restrictions), b) virtual from home, or c) a hybrid form of in-person and virtual. The latter option was chosen by many parents and students in the targeted counties. In addition, for parts of the fall semester in 2020, schools were closed several times, based on both local and state-wide COVID-19 exposure measures that were updated weekly, and decided on by WV State Education Authorities and local Boards of Education. A fourth option for schooling was also run solely by the WV State. This option utilized a separate curriculum, was virtual only, and unrelated to county school curriculum. Families and children that selected this option for schooling in the fall of 2020 became ineligible for the study, because our sampling frame and all study plans and preparations were based on collaboration with County Boards of Education in the five participating counties. Limited data exists on the group that participated in the state-wide virtual school program, but local insights suggest that this group comprised less than 8% of the total student population and was characterized by more affluent students compared to the rest of the student population. Unfortunately, we had very limited opportunity to obtain data on this group and the option was closed after the 2020 – 2021 school calendar year. In addition, due to the nature of the pandemic many students also chose to come back to regular school at some point during the fall 2020 and spring 2021 semesters and did not spend a whole semester in the State virtual option. This WV State option is what we are referring to in the sentence sited by the reviewer. In an attempt to clarify this further in the manuscript without overly complicating the storyline we have revised the sentence to read as follows:

“During the baseline assessment, from October - December 2020; 1,671 students attended regular school in either face-to-face or hybrid (part in person, part virtual) formats (i.e., not in virtual-only WV State format which was a limited option during the height of the COVID19 era) and thus were accessible to the study team. “

Comment 4: Did authors examine potential collinearity among the control variables? My concern is that the overlap in some of these variables may have led to overadjustment. Consider parsimony if there is little statistical rationale for keeping all of these covariates in the model.

Our Response: Thank you. We did assess collinearity and found the Variance Inflation Factor to be below 1.16 for all variables. We also re-ran all models, and for parsimony we omitted family structure and parental smoking from the final reported models as those were unrelated to the outcomes in both models reported in Table 2.

Comment 5: In Table 1, Ns do not add up to total for most variables. For example, for the "Any nicotine use at follow-up" variable, n=80 were coded as Yes and n=909 were coded as No - these do not add up to the full N=1187. The same is true for: E-cigarette/Vaping only at follow-up, Gender, Any alcohol use at baseline, and Parental smoking at baseline. Please clarify whether these are missing data and add a footnote if so.

Our Response: The differences are due to variation in missing values. For clarification we have added sample sizes and missing cases to the table.

Comment 6: I think it would be worthwhile to show more info on types of caffeine consumed among the sample - what was the most common source? How many consumed more than one source? etc.

Our Response: Frequency of reported daily caffeine use by type has been added to Table 1, as well as the proportion of non-users. Those details are also discussed briefly in the Results section.

Comment 7: Did authors collect data on where participants were obtaining caffeine beverages from (e.g., from home, purchasing themselves)? If they were purchasing themselves from stores that have tobacco products on display, such as gas stations, it is possible that they also had greater exposure to tobacco advertisements.

Our Response: Unfortunately, we did not. However, the point is well taken, leading us to include the omission as a limitation in the penultimate paragraph of the Discussion.

Comment 8: Two regression models were run: 1) Any tobacco use vs. no tobacco use, and 2) Exclusive e-cig/vaping vs. no tobacco use. For Model 2, consider modeling the outcome as 3 levels: no nicotine use, vaping only, dual/poly use (i.e., vaping + some other nicotine product). This would help retain the sample size and would lend insight into whether there may be a dose-response relationship.

Our Response: Thank you. As suggested, we conducted this analysis by running a multinomial logistic regression model (see Table below). The findings are consistent with our original analyses. The multinomial model, however, resulted in a more complicated storyline that affected the clarity of the manuscript. We thus elected to retain the original strategy of reporting on two binary logistic models.

Table 3. Multinomial logistic regression models excluding tobacco users of substances other than vaping, with odds ratios and 95% Confidence Intervals, n = 915.

Model 3: DV E-cig/Vaping only (n=42) and E-cig/Vaping with other substances (n=19) relative to no tobacco use (n=854)

Variables Est. SE P value

Intercept vaping only -7.76 0.73 <0.0001

Intercept vaping plus other substances -6.35 0.68 <0.0001

Exp (β) 95% CI P value

Caffeine mg/day (deciles) 1.15 1.03, 1.27 0.008

Covariates

Gender (ref=Girls)

Boys

Other

1.35

1.14

0.72, 2.53

0.23, 5.45

0.597

0.980

Race (ref=Other)

White

0.36

0.18, 0.72

0.003

Alcohol use at baseline (ref=No)

Yes

1.41

0.71, 2.82

0.318

Perceived parental reactions to ATOD use 1.17 1.06, 1.29 0.001

Peer substance use 1.17 1.08, 1.27 0.0001

Perceived access to nicotine 1.42 1.24, 1.63 <0.0001

Comment 9: The Discussion could be strengthened by drawing more explicit connections between caffeine and nicotine - for example, an interesting point was raised that academic stressors increase from elementary to middle school (top of page 15), and the relevance of this point can be emphasized by showing that both substances can increase alertness and concentration, thus, both may be appealing/used in the same contexts to keep up with such academic stressors.

Our Response: In response to the reviewer’s request, new text has been added to the Discussion, as follows: “Thus, increased arousal and alertness from caffeine’s anti-somnolent effects coupled with caffeine’s potential to augment the reinforcing and psychostimulant effects of nicotine may present a potent combination of effects for youth coping with new and increased life challenges. Consequently, regular caffeine consumption, particularly during stressful periods of increased demands and responsibility typical of early adolescence, may contribute to the uptake and eventual regular use of nicotine.”

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Tommaso Martino

20 Feb 2023

PONE-D-22-23716R1Possible role of caffeine in nicotine use onset among early adolescents: Evidence from the Young Mountaineer Health Study CohortPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kristjansson,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 06 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Tommaso Martino, M.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Thank you for inviting me to review the revised manuscript Possible role of caffeine in nicotine use onset among early adolescents: Evidence from the Young Mountaineer Health Study Cohort for consideration in PLOS ONE. The authors have addressed all comments from the previous round of review. However, the authors can still improve on descripting their data collection procedure (see comments below). There are several minor grammatical-type inconsistencies throughout the paper. Since PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, I would suggest the authors carefully read through the manuscript and make any needed small edits (see comments below for some suggested edits).

Introduction:

Line 68 change “(e.g. high-school students)” to (e.g., high-school students)

Materials and Methods

check throughout the manuscript for 1 vs 2 spaces after periods (see line 98, also line 27 in the abstract)

Line 104 “WV State”, just write out West Virginia

Line 105 change “COVID19” to “COVID-19” to be consistent throughout the paper

Table 1:

“ENDS only at follow-up” change variable to “ENDS use only at follow-up”

“Coffee 335 (28.27%” missing closing parentheses

Procedure:

Line 123-124 I am a bit confused about what “designated class-room hours from home” means. Did research staff come into individual homes? Earlier in the manuscript it sounded like all participants were in school at least part time and all others excluded. This phrase made me think maybe I misunderstood what was previously stated.

I don’t think this applies but in case it does: Did the authors check for any differences in responses between students who took the survey at home vs at school? I worry that students taking the survey at home where parents may be present could influence responses.

Results:

Line 212-213 You write “ENDS devices” in several places. Just say ENDS and remove the word devices. This is also in the discussion several times. Please check and change throughout the manuscript.

Line 225 “The second model included exclusive ENDS as...” (insert “use”)

Discussion:

Line 242 add the word “use” after ENDS “...we also ran our models to include only ENDS [use] as the outcome variable”

Line 249 “Further, consistent with recent studies, ENDS was” change to “ENDS use was” or make another change. The sentence reads oddly.

Line 253 “...commonly used nicotine product...” change to “...commonly used nicotine products...”

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2023 May 11;18(5):e0285682. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0285682.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


23 Feb 2023

Manuscript PONE-D-22-23716R1

Reviewer 2, additional comments:

Comment 1: Thank you for inviting me to review the revised manuscript Possible role of caffeine in nicotine use onset among early adolescents: Evidence from the Young Mountaineer Health Study Cohort for consideration in PLOS ONE. The authors have addressed all comments from the previous round of review. However, the authors can still improve on descripting their data collection procedure (see comments below). There are several minor grammatical-type inconsistencies throughout the paper. Since PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, I would suggest the authors carefully read through the manuscript and make any needed small edits (see comments below for some suggested edits).

Our Response: Thank you for taking the time to provide additional comments to improve our work. We greatly appreciate the reviewer’s dedication in helping us provide a quality manuscript for further consideration.

Comment 2: Introduction: Line 68 change “(e.g. high-school students)” to (e.g., high-school students).

Our Response: The requested change has been made.

Comments 3-5: Materials and Methods.

Check throughout the manuscript for 1 vs 2 spaces after periods (see line 98, also line 27 in the abstract).

Line 104 “WV State”, just write out West Virginia

Line 105 change “COVID19” to “COVID-19” to be consistent throughout the paper

Our Response: We have carefully checked all double spaces after periods and made the additional requested changes.

Comments 6-7: Table 1:

“ENDS only at follow-up” change variable to “ENDS use only at follow-up”

“Coffee 335 (28.27%” missing closing parentheses

Our Response: Thank you. Those changes have been made.

Comments 8-9: Procedure:

Line 123-124 I am a bit confused about what “designated class-room hours from home” means. Did research staff come into individual homes? Earlier in the manuscript it sounded like all participants were in school at least part time and all others excluded. This phrase made me think maybe I misunderstood what was previously stated.

I don’t think this applies but in case it does: Did the authors check for any differences in responses between students who took the survey at home vs at school? I worry that students taking the survey at home where parents may be present could influence responses.

Our Response: We agree with the reviewer that accessing survey participants from home warrants special attention with regards to the potential of outside influences, such as from parents or caregivers. This is precisely what we did and attempted to convey in the narrative. During the COVID-19 pandemic many schools operated solely online for different periods of time. If our data collection was planned to take place while schools were operating solely online, we attempted to minimize potential interference from others (such as parents/caregivers or siblings) by ensuring that the surveys were run during the time of a designated class while the student camera was turned on, as opposed to simply sending a survey link to the student’s email address. This way we preserved a degree of supervision regarding who would be responding to the survey, and control over the time when the survey was responded to by each student. We have revised the sentence pertaining to this issue. It now reads: “Students responded to the surveys either inside schools or during designated online classes from home with their camera turned on, depending on accessibility during COVID-19 mitigation efforts”.

Comments 10-13: Results/Discussion:

Line 212-213 You write “ENDS devices” in several places. Just say ENDS and remove the word devices. This is also in the discussion several times. Please check and change throughout the manuscript.

Line 225 “The second model included exclusive ENDS as...” (insert “use”)

Line 242 add the word “use” after ENDS “...we also ran our models to include only ENDS [use] as the outcome variable”

Line 249 “Further, consistent with recent studies, ENDS was” change to “ENDS use was” or make another change. The sentence reads oddly.

Our Response: We have carefully reviewed and revised all instances of “ENDS” so that the manuscript now solely states “use of ENDS”, or “ENDS use” and the word “devices” has been removed.

Comment 14: Line 253 “...commonly used nicotine product...” change to “...commonly used nicotine products...”

Our response: The change has been made.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response 2 to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 2

Tommaso Martino

10 Apr 2023

PONE-D-22-23716R2Possible role of caffeine in nicotine use onset among early adolescents: Evidence from the Young Mountaineer Health Study CohortPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kristjansson,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 25 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Tommaso Martino, M.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

As suggested by our referee, the health-related negative effects of nicotine are well known, also in its pure form. Please avoid such sentences.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: I have no further comments regarding this manuscript. I appreciate the authors' edits and openness to feedback.

Reviewer #4: Please provide rationale for recoding caffeine intake into deciles instead of using raw values.

Statement at the end of discussion "Conversely, although nicotine products are not all equally harmful to health, no one seriously questions the potential for harm posed by nicotine-containing products in general" is quite an unsupported generalization and should be rephrased or removed. There are many well known and well studied harms of nicotine, independent of the health risks caused by the non-nicotine components of nicotine-containing products.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #4: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2023 May 11;18(5):e0285682. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0285682.r006

Author response to Decision Letter 2


15 Apr 2023

Manuscript PONE-D-22-23716R2

Reviewer 4, additional comments:

Comment 1, Editorial: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Our Response: We have carefully reviewed the reference list and made minor changes to four references. No reference was retracted or added.

Comment 2: Please provide rationale for recoding caffeine intake into deciles instead of using raw values.

Our Response: We have added the following sentence at the end of the description of the caffeine variable (lines 152-153): “Due to the wide range (0 – 3000mg) and high negative skew, the continuous variable was recoded into deciles for simpler interpretation.”

Comment 3 and Editorial: Statement at the end of discussion "Conversely, although nicotine products are not all equally harmful to health, no one seriously questions the potential for harm posed by nicotine-containing products in general" is quite an unsupported generalization and should be rephrased or removed. There are many well known and well studied harms of nicotine, independent of the health risks caused by the non-nicotine components of nicotine-containing products.

Editorial: As suggested by our referee, the health-related negative effects of nicotine are well known, also in its pure form. Please avoid such sentences.

Our Response: We have revised the sentence to read as follows: “Conversely, no one seriously questions the harm posed by nicotine-containing products [41]”.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response 3 to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 3

Tommaso Martino

28 Apr 2023

Possible role of caffeine in nicotine use onset among early adolescents: Evidence from the Young Mountaineer Health Study Cohort

PONE-D-22-23716R3

Dear Dr. Kristjansson,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Tommaso Martino, M.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #4: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Tommaso Martino

3 May 2023

PONE-D-22-23716R3

Possible role of caffeine in nicotine use onset among early adolescents: Evidence from the Young Mountaineer Health Study Cohort

Dear Dr. Kristjansson:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Tommaso Martino

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Dataset

    (CSV)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response 2 to Reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response 3 to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES