A systematic review of longitudinal studies on the association between depression and smoking in adolescents
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is well-established that smoking and depression are associated in adolescents, but the temporal ordering of the association is subject to debate. METHODS: Longitudinal studies in English language which reported the onset of smoking on depression in non clinical populations (age 13-19) published between January 1990 and July 2008 were selected from PubMed, OVID, and PsychInfo databases. Study characteristics were extracted. Meta-analytic pooling procedures with random effects were used. RESULTS: Fifteen studies were retained for analysis. The pooled estimate for smoking predicting depression in 6 studies was 1.73 (95% CI: 1.32, 2.40; p < 0.001). The pooled estimate for depression predicting smoking in 12 studies was 1.41 (95% CI: 1.21, 1.63; p < 0.001). Studies that used clinical measures of depression were more likely to report a bidirectional effect, with a stronger effect of depression predicting smoking. CONCLUSION: Evidence from longitudinal studies suggests that the association between smoking and depression is bidirectional. To better estimate these effects, future research should consider the potential utility of: (a) shorter intervals between surveys with longer follow-up time, (b) more accurate measurement of depression, and (c) adequate control of confounding.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it