Transitions in Smoking Status Over Time in a Population-Based Panel Study of Smokers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Few studies have examined the transitions of smokers in the general population through multiple periods of daily, occasional smoking, or abstinence over time. Transitions from daily to occasional smoking are particularly of interest as these may be steps toward cessation. METHODS: The Ontario Tobacco Survey panel study followed 4,355 baseline smokers, semiannually for up to 3 years. Probabilities of all possible changes in smoking status more than 6 months were estimated using 13,000 repeated measures observations generated from sets of 3 consecutive interviews (n = 9,932 daily smokers, 1,245 occasion smokers, and 1,823 abstinent for at least 30 days, at Time 1). RESULTS: For initial daily smokers, an estimated 83% remained daily smokers more than 2 follow-ups. The majority of those who had been abstinent for 30 days at 1 interview, were also former smokers at the following interview. In contrast, occasional smoking status was unstable and future smoking status was dependent upon smoking history and subjective dependence. Among daily smokers who became occasional smokers 6 months later, an estimated 20% became a former smoker, at the next interview, but 50% returned to daily smoking. Daily, turned occasional smokers who rebounded back to daily smoking were more likely to describe themselves as addicted at Time 1. Continuing occasional smokers were somewhat less likely to intend to quit, or have tried, despite considering themselves less addicted. CONCLUSIONS: Reducing to occasional smoking can be a stepping stone toward cessation but entails a greater risk of return to daily smoking, compared with complete abstinence.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".