Provider advice about smoking cessation and pharmacotherapy among cancer survivors who smoke: practice guidelines are not translating
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
Smoking among childhood and young adult cancer survivors may increase risk for late effects of treatment, and survivors need assistance in quitting. This paper reports on the prevalence of discussions between childhood cancer survivors and their health care providers about smoking cessation and pharmacotherapy and explores factors that are associated with these discussions. This is a longitudinal study that included 329 smokers who were childhood or young adult cancer survivors, recruited from five cancer centers in the USA and Canada. Fifty-five percent of smokers reported receiving advice to quit smoking from their regular provider during the study period, and only 36 % of smokers reported discussing pharmacotherapy with their provider. Receipt of advice was associated with being female and having a heavier smoking rate. Pharmacotherapy discussions were associated with readiness to quit, heavier smoking rate, and previous provider advice to quit. Health care providers are missing key opportunities to advise cancer survivors about cessation and evidence-based interventions. Systematic efforts are needed to ensure that survivors who smoke get the treatment that they need.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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