Sex Differences in Attaining Cigarette Smoking and Nicotine Dependence Milestones Among Novice Smokers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There may be sex differences in the response to nicotine, according to findings of studies in animals; however, sex differences in the natural course of cigarette smoking and nicotine dependence are documented in few studies. Prevalent (n = 240 girls; n = 184 boys) and incident (n = 231 girls; n = 184 boys) cigarette smokers from the Nicotine Dependence in Teens Study were followed up to 5 years after first puff, from age 12 to 18 years (1999-2005). We used Cox proportional hazards models to compare time to development of 3 cigarette-use (i.e., whole cigarette; 100 cigarettes lifetime; regular smoking), and 3 nicotine-dependence symptom (i.e., "really need a cigarette"; mentally addicted; physically addicted) milestones across sex. Girls were at higher risk than boys of attaining all milestones; hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) ranged from 1.35 (1.06, 1.72) for 100 cigarettes lifetime to 1.74 (1.44, 2.10) for "really need a cigarette." Among nonregular smokers, 26% (8%; 43%) and 25% (6%; 44%) more girls than boys reported "really need a cigarette" 1 and 2 years, respectively, after first puff. Preventive interventions may need adjustment to incorporate these findings. Additional research should clarify the relative contribution of biological and social underpinnings of these sex differences.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".