Tobacco Treatment Guideline for High Risk Groups: A pilotstudy in patients with Chronic Obstructive PulmonaryDisease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Smoking cessation is a key clinical intervention for reducing progressive lung destruction and lung function deterioration in patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). Specialised Tobacco Cessation Guidelines for High-risk Groups (TOB-G) were developed and published in 2017 that present evidence-based recommendations to support smoking cessation in COPD patients. The purpose of this pilot study was to examine the real world effectiveness of the TOB-G guideline recommendations among a sample of COPD patients. METHODS: A pilot study was conducted among a sample of COPD patients who smoke and were interested in quitting. Participants were recruited from inpatient and outpatient hospital admissions between October and December 2016 in Iasi, Romania. The intervention program was designed based on the recommendations of the TOB-G guidelines for COPD patients. Patients received a total of four contacts: at baseline, 1, 2, and 6 months. The primary outcome measure was biochemically validated point prevalence smoking abstinence measured at 6 months. RESULTS: Fifty patients (74% male; age mean±SD = 60.2±7.8) with diagnosed COPD took part in the pilot study. Self-reported rates of point prevalence smoking abstinence were 30.6%, 44.9% and 64.6% at the 1-, 2-, and 6-month follow-up, respectively. Carbon monoxide testing was completed with 51.6% of the sample at 6 months. The biochemically verified abstinent rate was 33.3% at the 6-month follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot testing of the TOB-G Clinical Practice Guidelines for COPD patients was associated with high rates of patient smoking abstinence, which are of clinical importance. Further research is needed to evaluate the guidelines large-scale effectiveness in clinical practice.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".