The ‘Healthy Smoker’: A Phenomenon of Health Selection?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The detrimental effects of smoking on lung function have been recognized for several decades. Evidence comes from cross-sectional studies which emphasize that damage, certainly at the level of the small airways, may be detectable after a relatively short smoking history, and from longitudinal studies which show that smoking is associated with an increased rate of function loss over time. Implicit in most published evaluations of the evidence has been the concept that smoking is a habit taken up at random by the general population, and that those who do and do not take up the habit start out with similar levels of lung function. Published material was reviewed for evidence to the contrary, consistent with a health selection process similar to that shown in relation to workplace exposures and labeled the 'healthy worker' effect. Despite the wealth of published data on the topic of lung function in relation to the smoking habit, much is presented in a way which does not permit the concept of the 'healthy smoker' to be addressed. Nevertheless, this review revealed sufficient evidence from cross-sectional studies, as well as evidence from one longitudinal study to support the concept of the 'healthy smoker' as an individual who takes up the habit because his/her lungs are relatively resistant to the effects of smoking. If correct, this means that previous studies, particularly those which were cross-sectional in design and focussed on younger persons, are likely to have underestimated the consequences of smoking on lung function. The concept of the 'healthy smoker' may also throw light on characteristics which identify the 'susceptible smoker'.
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 | 0.015 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".