Smoking and binge drinking among Canadian survivors of childhood and adolescent cancers: A comparative, population‐based study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Objectives of this study were to describe the prevalence of smoking and binge drinking among survivors of childhood and adolescent cancer compared to controls who had never had cancer, and to identify factors associated with these behaviors. PROCEDURE: Data came from a national, multi-centre, population-based study of survivors of childhood and adolescent cancer (n = 1,263) aged 16 to 37 years and an age and gender matched control group (n = 1,422). Logistic regression analyses were performed to determine the likelihood and predictors of current smoking and binge drinking. RESULTS: Survivors were less likely to be current smokers (OR(adj) = 0.65, 95% CI = 0.54-0.77) and binge drinkers (OR(adj) = 0.66, 95% CI = 0.55-0.78) than the controls. Still, a substantial proportion of survivors reported smoking (23%) and binge drinking (25%). Survivors' smoking and binge drinking did not vary substantially by the clinical factors assessed. Survivors who received therapy associated with cardiac and/or pulmonary toxicity were as likely to smoke as non-exposed survivors. For both the survivors and controls current smoking and binge drinking were associated with lower education and higher reported stress. Binge drinking was also associated with being male and life dissatisfaction in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates a need to reduce smoking and binge drinking among survivors of childhood and adolescent cancer and to design interventions addressing the underlying reasons for adopting unhealthy behaviors despite their risk for late effects. We identified factors related to smoking and binge drinking among survivors: being male, lower educational attainment, life dissatisfaction and high stress, which should help inform intervention development.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".