MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W143572740

Tobacco use during pregnancy among Alaska Natives in western Alaska.

2006· article· en· W143572740 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Caroline C. Renner, Christi A. Patten, Gretchen Ehrsam Day, Carrie Enoch, D. R. Schroeder, Kenneth P. Offord, R. Douglas Hurt, Ann Gasheen, Leigh Gill

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSmoking Behavior and Cessation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSmokeless tobaccoPregnancyDemographyTobacco usePopulationRetrospective cohort studyDemographicsCohortEnvironmental healthSurgery
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To determine tobacco use rates during pregnancy among Alaska Natives residing on the Yukon-Kuskokwim (Y-K) Delta of western Alaska. Alaska Natives residing in this region use Iqmik, a unique form of smokeless tobacco (ST). STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. The medical records of the most recent consecutive 100 Alaska Native women delivering within the Y-K Health Corporation system in 2001 were abstracted for information on tobacco use during this pregnancy and basic demographics. RESULTS: Of the 100 women, 24 did not use tobacco, 55 used ST only, 18 smoked cigarettes only, and 3 used both ST and smoked cigarettes during this pregnancy. Of the 58 who used ST, 22 used Iqmik only, 32 used commercial ST only, and 4 used both. The frequency of ST use increased significantly with age (p=0.007; OR=1.65 per 5-year increase in age, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.36), while the frequency of cigarette smoking tended to decrease with age (p=0.254; OR=0.79 per 5-year increase in age, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.18). CONCLUSION: A high proportion of Alaska Native women use tobacco during pregnancy. The rate of ST use (58%) among pregnant Alaska Native women is markedly higher than the prevalence of ST use (0.5%) among women in the general U.S. population.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.221 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicSmoking Behavior and Cessation→French-language works237,207→