Does coffee consumption impact on heaviness of smoking?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Coffee consumption and cigarette smoking are strongly associated, but whether this association is causal remains unclear. We sought to: (1) determine whether coffee consumption influences cigarette smoking causally, (2) estimate the magnitude of any association and (3) explore potential mechanisms. DESIGN: We used Mendelian randomization (MR) analyses of observational data, using publicly available summarized data from the Tobacco and Genetics (TAG) consortium, individual-level data from the UK Biobank and in-vitro experiments of candidate compounds. SETTING: The TAG consortium includes data from studies in several countries. The UK Biobank includes data from men and women recruited across England, Wales and Scotland. PARTICIPANTS: The TAG consortium provided data on n ≤ 38 181 participants. The UK Biobank provided data on 8072 participants. MEASUREMENTS: In MR analyses, the exposure was coffee consumption (cups/day) and the outcome was heaviness of smoking (cigarettes/day). In our in-vitro experiments we assessed the effect of caffeic acid, quercetin and p-coumaric acid on the rate of nicotine metabolism in human liver microsomes and cDNA-expressed human CYP2A6. FINDINGS: Two-sample MR analyses of TAG consortium data indicated that heavier coffee consumption might lead to reduced heaviness of smoking [beta = -1.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) = -2.88 to -0.09]. However, in-vitro experiments found that the compounds investigated are unlikely to inhibit significantly the rate of nicotine metabolism following coffee consumption. Further MR analyses in UK Biobank found no evidence of a causal relationship between coffee consumption and heaviness of smoking (beta = 0.20, 95% CI = -1.72 to 2.12). CONCLUSIONS: Amount of coffee consumption is unlikely to have a major causal impact upon amount of cigarette smoking. If it does influence smoking, this is not likely to operate via effects of caffeic acid, quercetin or p-coumaric acid on nicotine metabolism. The observational association between coffee consumption and cigarette smoking may be due to smoking impacting on coffee consumption or confounding.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".