Smoking, Smoking Cessation, and Risk of Sudden Cardiac Death in Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Few prospective studies have examined quantitative cigarette consumption and smoking cessation on sudden cardiac death (SCD) risk with long-term follow-up. METHODS AND RESULTS: We prospectively examined the association between cigarette smoking and smoking cessation on the risk of SCD among 101 018 women participating in the Nurses' Health Study without known coronary heart disease, stroke, and cancer at baseline 1980. During 30 years of follow-up, we identified 351 SCD events. Compared with never smokers, current smokers had a 2.44-fold (95% CI, 1.80-3.31) increased risk of SCD after controlling for coronary risk factors. In multivariable analyses, quantity of cigarettes smoked daily (P value for trend, <0.0001) and smoking duration (P value for trend, <0.0001) were linearly associated with SCD risk among current smokers. Small-to-moderate amounts of cigarette consumption (1-14 per day) were associated with a significant 1.84-fold (95% CI, 1.16-2.92) increase in SCD risk and every 5 years of continued smoking was associated with an 8% increase in SCD risk (hazard ratio, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.05-1.12; P<0.0001). The SCD risk linearly decreased over time after quitting and was equivalent to that of a never smoker after 20 years of cessation (P value for trend, <0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: In this large prospective cohort of women without coronary heart disease at baseline, a strong dose-response relationship between cigarette smoking and SCD risk was observed, and smoking cessation significantly reduced and eventually eliminated excess SCD risk. This suggests efforts to prevent SCD among women should include aggressive strategies for smoking cessation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".