Smoking and Lung Function of Lung Health Study Participants after 11 Years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Eleven years after Lung Health Study (LHS) entry, we performed spirometry in 77.4% of surviving participants who enrolled in a long-term follow-up study. Those not enrolling tended to be younger male heavy smokers who continued to smoke during the LHS. Their initial LHS lung function, after adjustment for these factors, did not differ from that of enrollees. Smoking habits by original LHS treatment groups (smoking intervention vs. usual care) tended to converge, but 93% of participants who were abstinent throughout the LHS were still abstinent at 11 years. Differences in lung function between treatment groups persisted; smoking intervention participants had less decline in FEV(1) than usual care participants. Men who quit at the beginning of the LHS had an FEV(1) rate of decline of 30.2 ml/year, whereas women who quit declined at 21.5 ml/year. Men continuing to smoke throughout the 11 years declined by 66.1 ml/year, and women continuing to smoke declined by 54.2 ml/year. When decline in FEV(1) was expressed as a percentage of predicted normal value, no significant sex-based difference was apparent among continuing smokers. At 11 years, 38% of continuing smokers had an FEV(1) less than 60% of the predicted normal value compared with 10% of sustained quitters.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".