Exercise to Enhance Smoking Cessation: the Getting Physical on Cigarette Randomized Control Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Exercise has been proposed as a useful smoking cessation aid. PURPOSE: The purpose of the present study is to determine the effect of an exercise-aided smoking cessation intervention program, with built-in maintenance components, on post-intervention 14-, 26- and 56-week cessation rates. METHOD: Female cigarette smokers (n = 413) participating in a supervised exercise and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) smoking cessation program were randomized to one of four conditions: exercise + smoking cessation maintenance, exercise maintenance + contact control, smoking cessation maintenance + contact control or contact control. The primary outcome was continuous smoking abstinence. RESULTS: Abstinence differences were found between the exercise and equal contact non-exercise maintenance groups at weeks 14 (57 vs 43 %), 26 (27 vs 21 %) and 56 (26 vs 23.5 %), respectively. Only the week 14 difference approached significance, p = 0.08. CONCLUSIONS: An exercise-aided NRT smoking cessation program with built-in maintenance components enhances post-intervention cessation rates at week 14 but not at weeks 26 and 56.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".