ASSESSING THE JOINT EFFECT OF SMOKING AND SEX, AND ITS ASSOCIATION WITH THE PREVALENCE OF ARTHRITIS IN OBESE CANADIANS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Arthritis is a chronic, progressive, inflammatory disease; it is known as the leading cause of chronic pain in North America. Researchers identified cigarette smoking as a major preventable risk factor for arthritis, and sex as a non-modifiable risk factor for arthritis. Objective To determine the association between a smoking–sex interaction, and the prevalence of arthritis among obese Canadians. Methods Using data from the Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS), cycle 4.0, interaction variables were created to demonstrate the effect of smoking, the effect of sex, and the joint effect of smoking and sex in relation to the prevalence of arthritis. The association between exposures of interest, smoking and sex, and health outcome of interest, prevalence of arthritis, was examined using multiple logistic regression and log binomial regression modelling. Measures of additive interaction (relative excess risk due to interaction (RERI), attributable proportion due to interaction (AP), synergy index (S)) using both additive and multiplicative models were calculated and assessed. Results The prevalence of the health outcome of interest was common; 29.7% of the study population reported having arthritis. The OR of arthritis was: 1.285 (1.148, 1.439) for male smokers; 1.606 (1.431, 1.802) for female non-smokers; and 2.240 (1.997, 2.513) female smokers compared with male non-smokers. All ORs were statistically significant, with the exception of individuals with some postsecondary education compared with individuals with less than secondary school education (OR=0.866 (0.747, 1.005)). Using logistic regression, measures of assumed additive interaction implied statistical significance of a biological interaction (RERI: 0.349 (0.142, 0.556), AP: 0.156 (0.065, 0.247), S 1.391 (1.102, 1.756)). The relative risk of arthritis was: 1.19263 (1.10369, 1.29105) for male smokers; 1.38933 (1.28697, 1.50282) female non-smokers; 1.61469 (1.49868, 1.74350) for female smokers compared with male non-smokers. Using log binomial regression, measures of additive interaction implied no statistical significance of a biological interaction (RERI: 0.033 (−0.072, 0.137), AP: 0.020 (−0.045, 0.085), S: 1.056 (0.879, 1.269)). Conclusions Although it appears that a synergistic smoking–sex interaction was present when using a multiplicative model, the additive model did not confirm this synergistic effect. Given that the additive model reports more accurate risk for a common outcome such as arthritis, this leads us to believe that smoking and sex do not have a synergistic effect on the prevalence of arthritis among obese Canadians.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".