Exercise as an adjunct to nicotine gum in treating tobacco dependence among women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This was the first randomized, controlled smoking cessation trial assessing the efficacy of an exercise intervention as an adjunct to nicotine gum therapy in comparison with both equal contact control and standard care control conditions. Sedentary female smokers aged 18-55 years were provided with nicotine gum treatment along with brief behavioral counseling and were randomized into one of these three behavioral adjunct conditions. In the "intent-to-treat" sample (N = 182), at end of treatment and at 1-year follow-up, there were clear, but nonsignificant, trends in univariate analyses in which the exercise and equal contact control conditions both had higher rates of abstinence than the standard care control. However, when adjusting for other predictors of relapse in a multiple logistic regression, both exercise and equal contact control showed an advantage over standard care control in avoiding early relapse (i.e., after 1 week). In a multivariate survival model adjusting for other predictors, the equal contact condition had a significantly lower likelihood of relapse compared with the standard care condition and there was a near significant trend in which exercise offered an advantage over standard care as well. While these findings suggest a slightly improved likelihood of abstinence with exercise compared with standard care, exercise did not differ from equal contact control in its efficacy. Potential explanations for these equivalent levels of efficacy and implications for the findings are discussed.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".