MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2189335276

Prevalence of cigarette smoking among young adults in Pakistan.

2008· article· en· W2189335276 on OpenAlexaff
Rashid Ahmed, Rizwan-ur-Rashid, Paul McDonald, S Wajid Ahmed

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSmoking Behavior and Cessation
Canadian institutionsThe Quebec Population Health Research Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLogistic regressionDemographyDescriptive statisticsPublic healthSiblingCigarette smokingEnvironmental healthInternal medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To obtain information about the prevalence of cigarette smoking among a selected sample of university students in Karachi and build our understanding of the determinants of smoking with respect to family smoking, smoking in the home, smoke-free public places, and quit smoking cessation programmes. METHODS: Data were collected as a part of a pilot project initiated by Jinnah University Karachi. Participants were 629 university students (432 males and 197 females) aged 18-25 years from ten universities in Karachi. Descriptive statistics and Logistic regression analyses were used to determine the results and conclusions. RESULTS: Thirty-nine per cent of students had smoked a whole cigarette in their life time, whereas 25% had smoked 100 or more cigarettes in their lifetime. Overall, 23% of students (31% male and 6% female) were classified as a current smoker and their mean age and standard deviation of smoking initiation was 17 +/- 2.7 years (17 +/- 2.6) for males and 16 +/- 2.9 females. Sixty-three percent of smokers reported that public places should be smoke-free. Logistic regression analyses adjusted by age and gender suggested that parental and sibling influence and number of close friends and individuals who smoke at home were highly predictive of being a smoker. CONCLUSION: Findings from this study suggest that student were generally open to smoking cessation treatment and no-smoking restrictions.

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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.279

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Citations48
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicSmoking Behavior and CessationFrench-language works237,207