MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2154928810 · doi:10.1136/tc.2008.024810

Longitudinal rates of smoking in a schizophrenia sample

2008· article· en· W2154928810 on OpenAlexaffabout
Joel O. Goldberg, Jessica Van Exan

Bibliographic record

VenueTobacco Control · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSchizophrenia research and treatment
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)Longitudinal studyPsychiatryRehabilitationMedicineSmoking prevalenceSample (material)Smoking cessationClinical psychologyPsychologyDemographyPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Despite the well documented link between high rates of smoking and schizophrenia, there have been no longitudinal studies that have looked at rates of smoking and associated factors over time. This prospective study examined the longitudinal rates of smoking in a schizophrenia clinic sample over a decade. METHODS: Longitudinal survey research was conducted in a well established community-based psychiatric rehabilitation program in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, providing long-term intensive case management and rehabilitation skills training. Stable community outpatients diagnosed with schizophrenia were surveyed initially in 1995 (n = 102) and then resurveyed 11 years later in 2006 (n = 76). The main outcome measure was self-report of smoking status. RESULTS: Smoking rates dropped significantly over time, with evidence that the number of "quitters" tripled over the past decade and the number of "everyday" smokers decreased by almost a third from 63.2% down to 43.3% (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The findings from the present study suggest that it is possible to obtain reduced smoking prevalence over time in a selected schizophrenia outpatient sample, though further research is required to better understand the factors related to quitting smoking in individuals with schizophrenia.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.431

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.268 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTobacco ControlSame topicSchizophrenia research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207