Indoor Tanning Trends Among US Adults, 2007–2018
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives. To examine indoor tanning trends among US adults, and the relation to indoor tanning youth access legislation. Methods. This study analyzed the Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS), a mailed survey, from the years 2007, 2011, 2013, 2014, 2017, and 2018 (combined n = 20 2019). Results. Indoor tanning prevalence decreased significantly over time among all US adults from 2007 (10%) to 2018 (4%; P < .001), among young adults aged 18 to 34 years (14% to 4%; P < .001), and among both women (14% to 4%; P < .001) and men (5% to 4%; P < .05). Indoor tanning significantly decreased in states that enacted youth access legislation by 2018, but did not significantly decrease for other states. Frequent indoor tanning was common in 2018; about one quarter of respondents who reported any indoor tanning did so 25 times or more in the past year. Conclusions. This study identifies several challenges in continuing to reduce indoor tanning in the United States. Youth access legislation may be effective for reducing tanning among the broader population of tanners; however, there remains a need for focus on highly frequent tanners, as well as men.
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.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it