Alcohol and tobacco co‐use in nondaily smokers: An inevitable phenomenon?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: Alcohol use has consistently been associated with smoking among nondaily smokers. However, this may not be an inevitable relationship that extends across all drinking sessions and/or all nondaily smokers. Recently, distinct subgroups of nondaily smokers have been identified, with one subgroup maintaining a stable pattern of nondaily smoking (long-term occasional smokers; LOS), and others transitioning to nondaily smoking either from a non-smoking status (early occasional smokers; EOS) or from a daily smoking status (former daily smokers; FDS). However, little is known about the extent to which these subgroups differ in their alcohol-tobacco co-administration patterns. DESIGN AND METHODS: 183 nondaily smokers (74 LOS; 55 EOS; 54 FDS) completed face-to-face interviews during which they provided details about their lifetime and past-week tobacco and alcohol administration patterns. RESULTS: EOS were more likely to report having used alcohol at the time of their first-ever cigarette relative to the other subgroups (P ≤ 0.001), but there were no differences in past-week co-administration patterns between the subgroups. Overall, less than one-third of all smoking sessions occurred when drinking, but these accounted for more than half of all cigarettes consumed during the previous week. Moreover, while only 42% of drinking sessions involved tobacco co-administration, when drinking and smoking did co-occur, significantly greater amounts of alcohol were consumed relative to drinking sessions where no tobacco was used (P < 0.01). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that alcohol use is not invariably related to smoking in EOS, FDS or LOS, but when it is, across all subgroups co-administration is associated with mutual dose escalation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".