Behavioral associations with waterpipe tobacco smoking dependence among US young adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Waterpipe tobacco smoking (WTS) is increasingly prevalent in the United States, especially among young adults. We aimed to (1) adapt items from established dependence measures into a WTS dependence scale for US young adults (the US Waterpipe Dependence Scale), (2) determine the factor structure of the items and (3) assess associations between scale values and behavioral use characteristics known to be linked to dependence. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: United States. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 436 past-year waterpipe tobacco users ages 18-30 years selected at random from a national probability-based panel. MEASUREMENTS: Participants responded to six tobacco dependence items adapted for WTS in US populations. Behavioral use characteristics included factors such as frequency of use and age of initiation. FINDINGS: Principal components analysis yielded an unambiguous one-factor solution. Approximately half (52.9%) of past-year waterpipe tobacco users received a score of 0, indicating that none of the six WTS dependence items were endorsed. Approximately one-quarter (25.4%) endorsed one dependence item and 22.7% endorsed two or more items. Higher WTS dependence scores were associated significantly with all five behavioral use characteristics. For example, compared with those who endorsed no dependence items, those who endorsed two or more had an adjusted odds ratio (AOR) of 3.90 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.56-9.78] for having had earlier age of initiation and an AOR of 32.75 (95% CI = 9.76-109.86) for more frequent WTS sessions. CONCLUSIONS: Scores on a six-item waterpipe tobacco smoking dependence scale (the US Waterpipe Dependence Scale) correlate with measures that would be expected to be related to dependence, such as amount used and age of initiation.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".