Solid fuels for cooking and tobacco use and risk of major chronic liver disease mortality: a prospective cohort study of 0.5 million Chinese adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Harmful substances in solid fuel and tobacco smoke are believed to enter the bloodstream via inhalation and to be metabolized in the liver, leading to chronic liver damage. However, little is known about the independent and joint effects of solid fuel use and smoking on risks of chronic liver disease (CLD) mortality. METHODS: During 2004-08, ∼0.5 million adults aged 30-79 years were recruited from 10 areas across China. During a 10-year median follow-up, 2461 CLD deaths were recorded. Multivariable Cox regression yielded adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the individual associations of self-reported long-term cooking fuel and tobacco use with major CLD death. RESULTS: Overall, 49% reported solid fuel use and 26% smoked regularly. Long-term solid fuel use for cooking and current smoking were associated with higher risks of CLD deaths, with adjusted HRs of 1.26 (95% CI, 1.02-1.56) and 1.28 (1.13-1.44), respectively. Compared with never-smoking clean fuel users, the HRs were 1.41 (1.10-1.82) in never-smoking solid fuel users, 1.55 (1.17-2.06) in regular-smoking clean fuel users and 1.71 (1.32-2.20) in regular-smoking solid fuels users. Individuals who had switched from solid to clean fuels (1.07, 0.90-1.29; for median 14 years) and ex-regular smokers who stopped for non-medical reasons (1.16, 0.95-1.43; for median 10 years) had no evidence of excess risk of CLD deaths compared with clean fuel users and never-regular smokers, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Among Chinese adults, long-term solid fuel use for cooking and smoking were each independently associated with higher risks of CLD deaths. Individuals who had stopped using solid fuels or smoking had lower risks.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".