Moving toward a true depiction of tobacco behavior among Asian Indians in California: Prevalence and factors associated with cultural smokeless tobacco product use
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Asian Indians (AIs) in the United States exhibit disproportionate burdens of oral cancer and cardiovascular disease, which are potentially linked to smokeless tobacco. However, little is known about the use of cultural smokeless tobacco (CST) products in this population. METHODS: California Asian Indian Tobacco Use Survey data from 2004 (n = 1618) were used to investigate CST prevalence among California's AIs. CST products included paan, paan masala, and gutka. A multivariable logistic regression was conducted to examine factors (socioeconomic status, acculturation measures, and religious affiliation) associated with current CST use versus never use. RESULTS: The current CST prevalence was 13.0% (14.0% for men and 11.8% for women). In contrast, the prevalence of current cigarette use was 5.5% (8.7% for men and 1.9% for women), and the prevalence was lower for cultural smoked tobacco (0.1% for bidis and 0.5% for hookahs). Factors associated with CST use included the following: being male, being 50 years old or older, being an immigrant, speaking an AI language at home, having a higher level of education (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] for high school/some college, 2.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-6.5; AOR for college degree or higher, 4.0; 95% CI, 1.7-9.5), having a higher income (AOR for $75,000-$100,000, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.3-4.7; AOR for ≥$100,000, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.4-5.0), identifying as non-Sikh (AOR for Hinduism, 10.0; 95% CI, 6.0-16.5; AOR for other faiths, 10.2; 95% CI, 5.9-17.7), and disagreeing that spiritual beliefs are the foundation of life (AOR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.2-3.5). CONCLUSIONS: The current CST prevalence is relatively high among California's AIs in comparison with the prevalence of smoking, with narrower differences between sexes. The association with a higher socioeconomic status is contrary to typical cigarette smoking patterns. Acculturation and religious affiliation are important factors associated with current use. Health care providers and policymakers should consider such determinants for targeted interventions. Cancer 2018;124:1607-13. © 2018 American Cancer Society.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".