Machine learning applications in tobacco research: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Identify and review the body of tobacco research literature that self-identified as using machine learning (ML) in the analysis. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMABSE, PubMed, CINAHL Plus, APA PsycINFO and IEEE Xplore databases were searched up to September 2020. Studies were restricted to peer-reviewed, English-language journal articles, dissertations and conference papers comprising an empirical analysis where ML was identified to be the method used to examine human experience of tobacco. Studies of genomics and diagnostic imaging were excluded. STUDY SELECTION: Two reviewers independently screened the titles and abstracts. The reference list of articles was also searched. In an iterative process, eligible studies were classified into domains based on their objectives and types of data used in the analysis. DATA EXTRACTION: Using data charting forms, two reviewers independently extracted data from all studies. A narrative synthesis method was used to describe findings from each domain such as study design, objective, ML classes/algorithms, knowledge users and the presence of a data sharing statement. Trends of publication were visually depicted. DATA SYNTHESIS: 74 studies were grouped into four domains: ML-powered technology to assist smoking cessation (n=22); content analysis of tobacco on social media (n=32); smoker status classification from narrative clinical texts (n=6) and tobacco-related outcome prediction using administrative, survey or clinical trial data (n=14). Implications of these studies and future directions for ML researchers in tobacco control were discussed. CONCLUSIONS: ML represents a powerful tool that could advance the research and policy decision-making of tobacco control. Further opportunities should be explored.
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 | 0.032 | 0.099 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.026 | 0.024 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".