Marijuana and chronic obstructive lung disease: a population-based study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Our aim was to determine the combined and independent effects of tobacco and marijuana smoking on respiratory symptoms and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in the general population. METHOD: We surveyed a random sample of 878 people aged 40 years or older living in Vancouver, Canada, about their respiratory history and their history of tobacco and marijuana smoking. We performed spirometric testing before and after administration of 200 microg of salbutamol. We examined the association between tobacco and marijuana smoking and COPD. RESULTS: The prevalence of a history of smoking in this sample was 45.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 42.2%-48.8%) for marijuana use and 53.1% (95% CI 49.8%-56.4%) for tobacco use. The prevalence of current smoking (in the past 12 months) was 14% for marijuana use and 14% for tobacco use. Compared with nonsmokers, participants who reported smoking only tobacco, but not those who reported smoking only marijuana, experienced more frequent respiratory symptoms (odds ratio [OR] 1.50, 95% CI 1.05-2.14) and were more likely to have COPD (OR 2.74, 95% CI 1.66-4.52). Concurrent use of marijuana and tobacco was associated with increased risk (adjusted for age, asthma and comorbidities) of respiratory symptoms (OR 2.39, 95% CI 1.58-3.62) and COPD (OR 2.90, 95% CI 1.53-5.51) if the lifetime dose of marijuana exceeded 50 marijuana cigarettes. The risks of respiratory symptoms and of COPD were related to a synergistic interaction between marijuana and tobacco. INTERPRETATION: Smoking both tobacco and marijuana synergistically increased the risk of respiratory symptoms and COPD. Smoking only marijuana was not associated with an increased risk of respiratory symptoms or COPD.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".