Tobacco use and psychosis risk in persons at clinical high risk
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To evaluate the role of tobacco use in the development of psychosis in individuals at clinical high risk. METHOD: The North American Prodrome Longitudinal Study is a 2-year multi-site prospective case control study of persons at clinical high risk that aims to better understand predictors and mechanisms for the development of psychosis. The cohort consisted of 764 clinical high risk and 279 healthy comparison subjects. Clinical assessments included tobacco and substance use and several risk factors associated with smoking in general population studies. RESULTS: Clinical high risk subjects were more likely to smoke cigarettes than unaffected subjects (light smoking odds ratio [OR] = 3.0, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.9-5; heavy smoking OR = 4.8, 95% CI = 1.7-13.7). In both groups, smoking was associated with mood, substance use, stress and perceived discrimination and in clinical high risk subjects with childhood emotional neglect and adaption to school. Clinical high risk subjects reported higher rates of several factors previously associated with smoking, including substance use, anxiety, trauma and perceived discrimination. After controlling for these potential factors, the relationship between clinical high risk state and smoking was no longer significant (light smoking OR = 0.9, 95% CI = 0.4-2.2; heavy smoking OR = 0.3, 95% CI = 0.05-2.3). Moreover, baseline smoking status (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.16, 95% CI = 0.82-1.65) and categorization as ever smoked (HR = 1.3, 95% CI = 0.8-2.1) did not predict time to conversion. CONCLUSION: Persons at high risk for psychosis are more likely to smoke and have more factors associated with smoking than controls. Smoking status in clinical high risk subjects does not predict conversion. These findings do not support a causal relationship between smoking and psychosis.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".