Gender, Environmental Tobacco Smoke, and Pulmonary Function in Rural Children and Adolescents: The Humboldt Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined the gender-related association between household exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) and pulmonary function among 862 children and adolescents aged 6 to 17 years living in the town of Humboldt, Saskatchewan, in 1993. Pulmonary function tests included forced vital capacity (FVC), forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), maximum mid-expiratory flow rate (FEF25-75), and flow rates at 75%, 50%, and 25% of vital capacity (Vmax75, Vmax50, and Vmax25). Each pulmonary function test variable was regressed on age, height, weight, and their quadratic and cubic polynomials, with the terms significant at the alpha level of 0.10 being retained. Residuals for the pulmonary function test variables, which are the differences between the observed and predicted values, were calculated. Estimations of ETS exposure were parental smoking status, number of household smokers, total daily cigarette consumption, and number of cigarettes smoked daily at home by household members. Maternal smoking status was significantly related to residual FEF25-75, Vmax75, Vmax50, and Vmax25. Number of household smokers and daily cigarette consumption by household members were significantly associated with FEV1, FEF25-75, Vmax75, Vmax50, and Vmax25, and the association between ETS exposure and pulmonary function was stronger in girls than in boys. Interaction of gender and number of cigarettes smoked daily at home was significantly related to FEF25-75, Vmax75, Vmax50, and Vmax25 among the non-smoking subjects. We concluded that ETS exposure had a larger effect on pulmonary function in girls than in boys.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".