MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract P323: The Effect of Smoking Cessation on Weight at 12 Months in Patients Post-Myocardial Infarction

2012· article· en· W2266390382 on OpenAlexaff
Sonia M. Grandi, Kristian B. Filion, André Gervais, Lawrence Joseph, Jennifer O’Loughlin, Gilles Paradis, Louise Pilote, Stéphane Rinfret, Mark J. Eisenberg

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Health and Risk Factors
Canadian institutionsInstitut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de QuébecUniversité de MontréalMcGill UniversityInstitut National de Santé Publique du QuébecJewish General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSmoking cessationAbstinenceBupropionWeight changeWeight lossWeight gainPlaceboMyocardial infarctionInternal medicinePhysical therapyBody weightObesityPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Current guidelines recommend smoking cessation and weight management for secondary prevention in post-myocardial infarction (MI) patients. However, little is known about the effects of smoking cessation on weight change post-MI. Methods: We examined this question using data from a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial investigating the effect of bupropion on smoking cessation in patients immediately following a MI. Weight change was compared between 3 groups: patients who reported complete abstinence, those who reported intermittent smoking, and those who reported persistent smoking during the 12-month follow-up. Analyses were restricted to patients who attended all follow-up visits (N=179). Weight was collected by research nurses at follow-up. Abstinence was defined by self-report in the previous 7 days and a carbon monoxide level ≤10 ppm. Results: During follow-up, 92 patients were abstinent, 49 were intermittently smoking, and 38 were consistently smoking. At baseline, 68.7% of patients were male, and the mean age was 53.9 years (SD 10.0). The mean weight and BMI at baseline were 78.4 kg (SD 17.7) and 27.3 kg/m 2 (SD 5.0), respectively. Mean body weight increased in all 3 groups during follow-up ( Figure ). However, patients who remained abstinent were more likely to gain weight than those who smoked persistently (difference 3.3 kg, 95% CI 0.9, 5.6). No difference in weight change was present between persistent and intermittent smokers. Both intermittent and persistent smokers reduced their daily cigarette consumption between baseline and 12-month follow-up (mean difference −15.5, 95% CI −19.1, −11.9 and −15.8, 95% CI, −19.9, −11.7, respectively). Conclusions: Patients who remain abstinent are more likely to gain weight 12 months post-MI. Given the importance of weight management in this population, strategies to ensure long-term weight control among patients who quit smoking are needed.

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)0.001
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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.279

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.249
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

Citations4
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculationSame topicCardiovascular Health and Risk FactorsFrench-language works237,207