Smoking, healthcare cost, and loss of productivity in Sweden 2001
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Objectives were (a) to estimate healthcare cost and productivity losses due to smoking in Sweden 2001 and (b) to compare the results with studies for Sweden 1980, Canada 1991, Germany 1996, and the USA 1998. METHODS: Published estimates on relative risks and Swedish smoking patterns were used to calculate attributable risks for smokers and former smokers. These were applied to cost estimates for smoking-related diseases based on data from public Swedish registers. RESULTS: The estimated total cost for Sweden 2001 was US 804 million dollars; COPD and cancer of the lung accounted for 43%. Healthcare cost accounted for 26% of the total cost. The estimated costs per smoker were US 3,200 dollars in the USA 1998; 1,600 in Canada 1991; 1,100 in Germany 1996; 600 in Sweden 2001; and 300 in Sweden 1980 (all in 2001 US dollar prices). CONCLUSIONS: To reduce the prevalence of smoking is an issue worthwhile pursuing in its own right. In order to reduce the cost of smoking, however, policy-makers should also explore and influence the factors that determine the cost per smoker. Sweden seems to have been more successful than comparable countries in pursuing both these objectives.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".