Modeling Smoking History: A Comparison of Different Approaches
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
The impact of cigarette smoking on various diseases is studied frequently in epidemiology. However, there is no consensus on how to model different aspects of smoking history. The aim of this investigation was to elucidate the impact of several decisions that must be made when modeling smoking variables. The authors used data on lung cancer from a case-control study undertaken in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, in 1979-1985. The roles of smoking status, intensity, duration, cigarette-years, age at initiation, and time since cessation were investigated using time-dependent variables in an adaptation of Cox's model to case-control data. The authors reached four conclusions. 1) The estimated hazard ratios for current and ex-smokers depend strongly on how long subjects are required to not have smoked to be considered "ex-smokers." 2) When the aim is to estimate the effect of continuous smoking variables, a simple approach can be used (and is proposed) to separate the qualitative difference between never and ever smokers from the quantitative effect of smoking. 3) Using intensity and duration as separate variables may lead to a better model fit than using their product (cigarette-years). 4) When estimating the effects of time since cessation or age at initiation, it is still useful to use cigarette-years, because it reduces multicollinearity.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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