Methodological issues in measuring treatment outcome in adolescent smoking cessation studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As the prevalence of adolescent smoking and, notably, regular smoking has increased over the last decade, researchers and practitioners have called for a consideration of treatment programs to promote cessation among adolescents who smoke. The adolescent smoking cessation treatment field is still in its infancy, though. The literature addressing adolescent cessation is rather limited to date, often plagued by methodological problems and characterized by little success. Many basic methodological questions remain for researchers to address before we will be able to answer questions such as which treatment approaches work best for which adolescent smokers. The purpose of this paper is to review briefly what is known about adolescent smoking cessation, to identify some important methodological issues to consider in treatment outcome studies, and to make recommendations to researchers to help provide a common ground for future comparisons of results across studies. We will address the natural history of adolescent smoking cessation, treatment outcomes, validity of self-reports and biochemical validation, and research recommendations.
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 | 0.654 | 0.814 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".