Cigarette smoking and chronic low back pain in the adult population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Chronic low back pain (LBP) is one of the main causes of disability in the community. Although there have been studies suggesting an association between smoking and LBP, these studies were limited by the small numbers of patients, and they did not control for confounders. The objective of this study was to determine whether cigarette smoking is associated with an increased risk of chronic LBP among adults. METHODS: Using Canadian Community Health Survey (cycle 3.1) data, 73,507 Canadians aged 20 to 59 yr were identified. Self-reported chronic LBP status, smoking habits, sex, age, height, weight, level of activity and level of education were identified as well. Back pain secondary to fibromyalgia was excluded. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to detect effect modification and to adjust for covariates. Design effects associated with complex survey design were taken into consideration. RESULTS: The prevalence of chronic LBP was 23.3% in daily smokers and only 15.7% in non-smokers. Age and sex were found to be effect modifiers (P < 0.0001), and the relationship between smoking and chronic LBP risk was dependent on sex and age. The association between daily smoking and the risk of chronic LBP was stronger among younger individuals. Occasional smoking slightly increased the odds of having chronic LBP. CONCLUSION: Daily smoking increases the risk of LBP among young adults, and this effect seems to be dose-dependent. Back pain treatment programs may benefit from integrating smoking habit modification. Further research is required to develop effective prevention strategies.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".