Dépistage systématique des pathologies liées à l’usage du tabac : état des lieux des recommandations pour une pratique en soins de santé primaires
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: smoking is a public health problem. Pathologies linked to its use are a major source of morbidity and mortality. However, their screening seems only rarely mentioned in the guidelines. Materials and methods: step 1: systematic search of guidelines for screening of pathologies linked to tobacco use (French and European health societies). The inclusion criteria were : guidelines dealing with smoking, screening in the smoker population, pathologies for which smoking is a risk factor. Step 2: expanding the search to international guidelines for: lung cancer, bladder cancer, coronary artery disease and COPD. Results: step 1: Out of 3357 French and European guidelines, 28 were included. They were disparate, often imprecise, there was no consensus on monitoring a smoking patient. Step 2: 19 guidelines mentioned screening for lung cancer by low dose computed tomography. In France it is not recommended, in Europe and Canada, it is not organized but different companies are in favor of it, in the United States, it is in place. COPD: 17 guidelines touched upon the early search for cases by spirometry, screening is not recommended in asymptomatic patients. Coronary artery disease: 14 guidelines called additional tests for cardiovascular risk assessment. They are multiple and their indications are heterogeneous. Bladder cancer: 13 health societies mentioned its screening, but it is not recommended in the general population (no validated test exist), however it should be studied in a population at risk (smokers). Conclusion: significant work still needs to be done in order to provide comprehensive treatment for the smoking patients, but as for now a monitoring checklist of these patients can be proposed to the general practitioners.
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 | 0.031 | 0.093 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".