Jonathan M Samet

Keck School of Medicine USC, Los Ángeles, California, United States

Are you Jonathan M Samet?

Claim your profile

Publications (526)3721.22 Total impact

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: At least three factors may be driving the evolution of the vape shop industry, a rapidly growing market sector that specializes in the sales of electronic cigarettes: (1) the tobacco industry, (2) the public health sector and its diverse stakeholders, and (3) consumer demand. These influences and the responses of the vape shop sector have resulted in a rapidly changing landscape. This commentary briefly discusses these three factors and the implications for the health professions, as they address the vape shop industry and its consequences for public health. © The Author(s) 2015.
    Evaluation &amp the Health Professions 05/2015; DOI:10.1177/0163278715586295 · 1.67 Impact Factor
  • Jonathan M Samet
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The Monograph program of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which relies on the efforts of volunteer Working Groups, uses a transparent approach to evaluate the carcinogenicity of agents for which scoping has determined that there is sufficient evidence to warrant a review. Because of the potentially powerful implications of the conclusions of the Monographs and the sometimes challenging nature of the evidence reviewed, the monographs and the IARC process have been criticized from time to time. This commentary describes the IARC monograph process and addresses recent criticisms of the program, drawing on a recent defense of the program authored by 124 researchers. These authors concluded that the IARC processes are robust and transparent, and, not flawed and biased as suggested by some critics. © The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.
    Carcinogenesis 05/2015; DOI:10.1093/carcin/bgv062 · 5.27 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To identify macro-level trends that are changing the needs of epidemiologic research and practice and to develop and disseminate a set of competencies and recommendations for epidemiologic training that will be responsive to these changing needs. There were three stages to the project: (1) assembling of a working group of senior epidemiologists from multiple sectors, (2) identifying relevant literature, and (3) conducting key informant interviews with 15 experienced epidemiologists. Twelve macro trends were identified along with associated actions for the field and educational competencies. The macro trends include the following: (1) "Big Data" or informatics, (2) the changing health communication environment, (3) the Affordable Care Act or health care system reform, (4) shifting demographics, (5) globalization, (6) emerging high-throughput technologies (omics), (7) a greater focus on accountability, (8) privacy changes, (9) a greater focus on "upstream" causes of disease, (10) the emergence of translational sciences, (11) the growing centrality of team and transdisciplinary science, and (12) the evolving funding environment. Addressing these issues through curricular change is needed to allow the field of epidemiology to more fully reach and sustain its full potential to benefit population health and remain a scientific discipline that makes critical contributions toward ensuring clinical, social, and population health. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
    Annals of epidemiology 03/2015; 25(6). DOI:10.1016/j.annepidem.2015.03.002 · 2.15 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Recently the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Programme for the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans has been criticized for several of its evaluations, and also the approach used to perform these evaluations. Some critics have claimed that IARC Working Groups' failures to recognize study weaknesses and biases of Working Group members have led to inappropriate classification of a number of agents as carcinogenic to humans. The authors of this paper are scientists from various disciplines relevant to the identification and hazard evaluation of human carcinogens. We have examined here criticisms of the IARC classification process to determine the validity of these concerns. We review the history of IARC evaluations and describe how the IARC evaluations are performed. We conclude that these recent criticisms are unconvincing. The procedures employed by IARC to assemble Working Groups of scientists from the various discipline and the techniques followed to review the literature and perform hazard assessment of various agents provide a balanced evaluation and an appropriate indication of the weight of the evidence. Some disagreement by individual scientists to some evaluations is not evidence of process failure. The review process has been modified over time and will undoubtedly be altered in the future to improve the process. Any process can in theory be improved, and we would support continued review and improvement of the IARC processes. This does not mean, however, that the current procedures are flawed. The IARC Monographs have made, and continue to make, major contributions to the scientific underpinning for societal actions to improve the public's health.
    Environmental Health Perspectives 02/2015; DOI:10.1289/ehp.1409149 · 7.03 Impact Factor
  • Yong S. Chung, Jonathan M. Samet
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We began publication of our International Journal, Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health (AQAH) in 2008. Now, at the 8-year mark, we write to give you a progress report and to thank you for your support. We are pleased to announce that AQAH will now be published bi-monthly rather than quarterly, starting with the first issue of volume 8. This change reflects the large number of high-quality submissions and your support.Our journal has now achieved a key international standard. The Impact Factor (Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Reports®) of the AQAH was 1.979 in 2012 and 1.455 in 2013. We are delighted with this initial level of citation and will be taking every step possible to advance the recognition of the important articles that we are publishing. Presently, the rate of acceptance of all submitted manuscripts is 36 %, reflecting the proficiency and efficiency of the guidance from our reviewers. We are very much encouraged by these achievements in such a short period, and we must thank o ...
    Air Quality Atmosphere & Health 02/2015; 8(1). DOI:10.1007/s11869-015-0323-x · 1.46 Impact Factor
  • Source
    01/2015; 81(1):216-217. DOI:10.1016/j.aogh.2015.02.996
  • Air Quality Atmosphere & Health 12/2014; 7(4):415-420. DOI:10.1007/s11869-014-0250-2 · 1.46 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The International Agency for Research on Cancer recently classified outdoor air pollution and airborne particulate matter as carcinogenic to humans. However, there are gaps in the epidemiologic literature, including assessment of possible joint effects of cigarette smoking and fine particulate matter (particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 µm in diameter) on lung cancer risk. We present estimates of interaction on the additive scale between these risk factors from Cancer Prevention Study II, a large prospective US cohort study of nearly 1.2 million participants recruited in 1982. Estimates of the relative excess risk of lung cancer mortality due to interaction, the attributable proportion due to interaction, and the synergy index were 2.19 (95% confidence interval (CI): -0.10, 4.83), 0.14 (95% CI: 0.00, 0.25), and 1.17 (95% CI: 1.00, 1.37), respectively, using the 25th and 75th percentiles as cutpoints for fine particulate matter. This suggests small increases in lung cancer risk among persons with both exposures beyond what would be expected from the sum of the effects of the individual exposures alone. Although reductions in cigarette smoking will achieve the greatest impact on lung cancer rates, these results suggest that attempted reductions in lung cancer risk through both tobacco control and air quality management may exceed expectations based on reducing exposure to either risk factor alone.
    American Journal of Epidemiology 11/2014; 180(12). DOI:10.1093/aje/kwu275 · 4.98 Impact Factor
  • Jonathan M. Samet, Ross C. Brownson
    American Journal of Preventive Medicine 11/2014; 47(5):S383–S385. DOI:10.1016/j.amepre.2014.07.012 · 4.28 Impact Factor
  • Source
    Jonathan M Samet, Sofia Gruskin
    The Lancet Respiratory Medicine 10/2014; 3(2). DOI:10.1016/S2213-2600(14)70145-6
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) for orofacial clefts have identified several susceptibility regions, but have largely focused on non-Hispanic White populations in developed countries. We performed a targeted genome-wide study of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in exons using the Illumina HumanExome+ array with custom fine mapping of 16 cleft susceptibility regions in three underserved populations: Congolese (87 case-mother, 210 control-mother pairs), Vietnamese (131 case-parent trios), and Filipinos (42 case-mother, 99 control-mother pairs). All cases were children with cleft lip with or without cleft palate. Families were recruited from local hospitals and parental exposures were collected using interviewer-administered questionnaires. We used logistic regression models for case-control analyses, family-based association tests for trios, and fixed-effect meta-analyses to determine individual SNP effects corrected for multiple testing. Of the 16 known susceptibility regions tested, SNPs in four regions reached statistical significance in one or more of these populations: 1q32.2 (IRF6), 10q25.3 (VAX1), and 17q22 (NOG). Due to different linkage disequilibrium patterns, significant SNPs in these regions differed between the Vietnamese and Filipino populations from the index SNP selected from previous GWAS studies. Among Africans, there were no significant associations identified for any of the susceptibility regions. rs10787738 near VAX1 (P = 4.98E−3) and rs7987165 (P = 6.1E−6) were significant in the meta-analysis of all three populations combined. These results confirm several known susceptibility regions and identify novel risk alleles in understudied populations. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
    American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A 10/2014; 164A(10). DOI:10.1002/ajmg.a.36693 · 2.05 Impact Factor
  • Source
    Jonathan M. Samet
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Engineered nanomaterials have structured components less than 100 nanometers or 0.1 μm in greatest diameter. Products with nanomaterials as their basis are diverse, including diagnostic and therapeutic agents, stain-resistant clothing, solar cells, sun blocks, and cosmetics, and an expanding array of applications is anticipated. The increasing production and use of engineered nanomaterials may lead to greater exposures of workers, consumers, and the environment, and raises concerns about potential harms to human and ecosystem health. This paper addresses the general topic of research on engineered nanomaterials, health, and the environment. It covers the history of research planning on engineered nanomaterials, giving emphasis to the recent reports from a committee of the US National Research Council. The two reports from this committee offered a framework-based research strategy intended to address critical uncertainties. This paper ends with general lessons learned from experience with engineered nanomaterials that may apply to other emerging environmental threats.
    09/2014; 1(3). DOI:10.1007/s40572-014-0023-y
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Implementation Science is a set of tools, principles and methodologies that can be used to bring scientific evidence into action, improve health care quality and delivery and improve public health. As the burden of cancer increases in low- and middle-income countries, it is important to plan cancer control programs that are both evidence-based and delivered in ways that are feasible, cost-effective, contextually appropriate and sustainable. This review presents a framework for using implementation science for cancer control planning and implementation and discusses potential areas of focus for research and programs in low and middle-income countries interested in integrating research into practice and policy.
    Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention 09/2014; 23(11). DOI:10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-14-0472 · 4.32 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: While hair samples are easier to collect and less expensive to store and transport than biological fluids, and hair nicotine characterizes tobacco exposure over a longer time period than blood or urine cotinine, information on its utility, compared with salivary cotinine, is still limited. We conducted a cross-sectional study with 289 participants (107 active smokers, 105 passive smokers with self-reported secondhand smoke (SHS) exposure, and 77 non-smokers with no SHS exposure) in Baltimore (Maryland, USA). A subset of the study participants (n = 52) were followed longitudinally over a two-month interval. Median baseline hair nicotine concentrations for active, passive and non-smokers were 16.2, 0.36, and 0.23 ng/mg, respectively, while those for salivary cotinine were 181.0, 0.27, and 0.27 ng/mL, respectively. Hair nicotine concentrations for 10% of passive or non-smokers were higher than the 25th percentile value for active smokers while all corresponding salivary cotinine concentrations for them were lower than the value for active smokers. This study showed that hair nicotine concentration values could be used to distinguish active or heavy passive adult smokers from non-SHS exposed non-smokers. Our results indicate that hair nicotine is a useful biomarker for the assessment of long-term exposure to tobacco smoke.
    International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 08/2014; 11(8):8368-8382. DOI:10.3390/ijerph110808368 · 1.99 Impact Factor
  • Jonathan M Samet
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This commentary addresses some of the diverse questions of current interest with regard to the health effects of air pollution, including exposure-response relationships, toxicity of inhaled particles and risks to health, multipollutant mixtures, traffic-related pollution, accountability research, and issues with susceptibility and vulnerability. It considers the challenges posed to researchers as they attempt to provide useful evidence for policy-makers relevant to these issues. This commentary accompanies papers giving the results from the ESCALA project, a multi-city study in Latin America that has an overall goal of providing policy-relevant results. While progress has been made in improving air quality, driven by epidemiological evidence that air pollution is adversely affecting public health, the research questions have become more subtle and challenging as levels of air pollution dropped. More research is still needed, but also novel methods and approaches to address these new questions.
    Salud publica de Mexico 08/2014; 56(4):379-385. · 0.94 Impact Factor
  • Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.) 07/2014; 25(4):618. DOI:10.1097/EDE.0000000000000109 · 6.18 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Particulate matter (PM) in outdoor air pollution was recently designated a Group I carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). This determination was based on the evidence regarding the relationship of PM2.5 and PM10 to lung cancer risk; however, the IARC evaluation did not include a quantitative summary of the evidence.
    Environmental Health Perspectives 06/2014; 122(9). DOI:10.1289/ehp.1408092 · 7.03 Impact Factor
  • Source
    Jonathan M Samet, Heather L Wipfli, Sofia Gruskin
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This commentary addresses the article in this issue by Huddle and colleagues concerning the implementation of policies by the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) School of Medicine and other academic health centers to not hire users of tobacco products. Huddle and colleagues explore the basis for such policies and find that even though institutions may be within their rights to implement such policies, the policies are inconsistent with the societal role of an academic health center as a caregiving institution. They see a potential for discrimination, as contemporary users of tobacco are more likely to have less education and lower incomes than nonusers.The authors of this commentary review the arguments for and against such policies and explore the complexities of the implementation of such a policy by a state institution. They express concern that a state institution has chosen not to hire state residents who use tobacco products, which are legal. The authors also explore the potentially discriminatory aspects of such policies and possible implications of these policies in the context of rights and legal frameworks.The academic medicine community must learn from the experience that will follow from such policies as well as from other state and nonstate institutions that have implemented similar employment policies. Huddle and colleagues have provided a thoughtful contribution to a complex and inevitably continuing discussion.
    Academic medicine: journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges 06/2014; 89(6):837-9. DOI:10.1097/ACM.0000000000000253 · 3.47 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Nitrogen dioxide (NO2), a ubiquitous atmospheric pollutant, has been reported to enhance the asthmatic response to allergen through eosinophilic activation in the airways. The effect of NO2 on inflammation without exposure to allergen is poorly studied. We investigated whether repeated peaks of NO2, at various realistic concentrations, induce changes in airway inflammation in asthmatics. 19 nonsmoker asthmatics were exposed at rest in a double-blind, crossover study, in randomized order, to 200 ppb NO2, or 600 ppb NO2, or clean air for 1x30 min day 1, and 2x30 min day 2. The three series of exposures were separated by 2 weeks. Inflammatory response in sputum was measured 6 hours (day 1), 32 hours (day 2), and 48 hours (day 3) after first exposure and compared to baseline measured twice 10 to 30 days before. Compared to baseline, the percentage of eosinophils in sputum increased by 57% after 600 ppb NO2 (P=0.003) but did not change significantly after 200 ppb. The slope of the association between the percentage of eosinophils and NO2 exposure level was significant (p=0.04). Eosinophil cationic protein (ECP) in sputum was highly correlated with eosinophil count and increased significantly after exposure to 600 ppb NO2 (p=0.001). Lung function assessed daily was not affected by NO2. To our knowledge, this is the first study on repeated NO2 peaks performed without allergen exposure that demonstrates a dose-related effect on airway eosinophilic inflammation in asthmatics.
    Environmental Health Perspectives 04/2014; 122(8). DOI:10.1289/ehp.1307240 · 7.03 Impact Factor

Publication Stats

27k Citations
3,721.22 Total Impact Points

Institutions

  • 2009–2015
    • Keck School of Medicine USC
      Los Ángeles, California, United States
  • 2009–2014
    • University of Southern California
      • • Keck School of Medicine
      • • Department of Preventive Medicine
      Los Angeles, California, United States
    • University of California, Los Angeles
      Los Ángeles, California, United States
  • 1999–2012
    • Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
      • • Department of Epidemiology
      • • Department of Biostatistics
      Baltimore, Maryland, United States
  • 1986–2012
    • University of New Mexico
      • Division of Hospital Medicine
      Albuquerque, New Mexico, United States
  • 2011
    • San Francisco VA Medical Center
      San Francisco, California, United States
  • 1994–2011
    • Johns Hopkins University
      • • Department of Biostatistics
      • • Department of Epidemiology
      Baltimore, Maryland, United States
    • Cancer Treatment Centre
      Anaheim, California, United States
    • University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston
      Galveston, Texas, United States
  • 2010
    • Pan American Health Organization (PAHO)
      Washington, Washington, D.C., United States
  • 2005–2009
    • Yonsei University
      • Graduate School of Public Health
      Seoul, Seoul, South Korea
    • Instituto Nacional de Salud Pública
      Cuernavaca, Morelos, Mexico
  • 2004–2009
    • Yale University
      • School of Forestry and Environmental Studies
      New Haven, CT, United States
    • University of Florida
      • Department of Statistics
      Gainesville, FL, United States
  • 2007
    • Baltimore City Public Schools
      Baltimore, Maryland, United States
    • University of Rochester
      • Division of General Medicine
      Rochester, New York, United States
  • 2006
    • University of California, San Francisco
      San Francisco, California, United States
    • Boston College, USA
      Boston, Massachusetts, United States
  • 1982–2004
    • University of New Mexico Hospitals
      Albuquerque, New Mexico, United States
  • 2002
    • Boston University
      Boston, Massachusetts, United States
    • Iowa State University
      Ames, Iowa, United States
  • 1997
    • University of Maryland, Baltimore
      • Department of Epidemiology and Public Health
      Baltimore, Maryland, United States
  • 1996
    • University of Washington Seattle
      • Department of Epidemiology
      Seattle, WA, United States
  • 1995–1996
    • National Cancer Institute (USA)
      • Epidemiology and Biostatistics
      Maryland, United States
    • University of Adelaide
      Tarndarnya, South Australia, Australia
  • 1988–1994
    • Albuquerque Academy
      Albuquerque, New Mexico, United States
    • Medical College of Wisconsin
      • Department of Medicine
      Milwaukee, WI, United States
  • 1990–1991
    • University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
      Milwaukee, Wisconsin, United States