Sub-clinical levels of attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder are associated with tobacco consumption in male but not in female smokers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An abudance of evidence has demonstrated an association between symptoms of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and tobacco consumption. However, previous research has focused solely on populations meeting full diagnostic criteria for ADHD, despite evidence suggesting that symptoms below diagnostic threshold can be associated with impairment. Furthermore, the role of gender in the relationship between ADHD symptoms and tobacco consumption has not been determined. To examine the relationship between ADHD symptoms, tobacco use, and gender in a non-clinical population, symptoms of inattention, hyperactivity and impulsivity were assessed in 230 undergraduate students (22 male and 45 female smokers, and 66 male and 97 female nonsmokers). Overall, relative to nonsmokers, the smoking subjects reported significantly higher levels of inattention and hyperactivity. In male smokers, both inattentive and hyperactive/impulsive symptoms were positively associated with the number of cigarettes smoked daily. This relationship did not hold for female smokers, for whom no association was found between symptoms and nicotine consumption. Findings imply that even sub-clinical levels of inattention and hyperactivity/impulsivity are related to indices of tobacco use in males, and support previous research suggesting that significant gender differences may exist in tobacco smoking motives. Results also have potential implications for tobacco cessation programs, which may require more individual tailoring.l glutamic pyruvic transaminase is identified in an elderly subject.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".