MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4207016186 · doi:10.18332/tid/143878

Association between waterpipe smoking and obesity:Population-based study in Qatar

2022· article· en· W4207016186 on OpenAlexaff
Abdulla Alkeilani, Abdelrahman Khalil, Afaf Azzan, Noof Al-Khal, Noora Al-Nabit, Omar Mohamed Sayed Ahmed Talab, Rahaf Al-Hajri, Samreen Rahmoon, Anas A. Ashour, Ishita Gupta, Ala‐Eddin Al Moustafa

Bibliographic record

VenueTobacco Induced Diseases · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersQatar University
KeywordsMedicineObesityBioelectrical impedance analysisBody mass indexAnthropometryWaistConfoundingPopulationOverweightBody fat percentageDemographyEnvironmental healthInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the past decade obesity prevalence has been increasing rapidly in the Gulf region (GR) including Qatar, becoming one of the major health issues in the region. Concomitantly, waterpipe (WP) smoking is increasing worldwide especially in the GR, and although the effect of cigarette smoking on body weight is well-established, studies indicating an association between WP smoking and obesity are scarce. Thus, we explored the association between WP smoking and obesity in comparison with cigarette smokers and healthy population in Qatar. METHODS We performed a cross-sectional study using data from Qatar Biobank and analyzed anthropometric measurements among 879 adults (aged 18-65 years) that included WP smokers, cigarette smokers, dual smokers and never smokers. Body composition was measured using bioelectrical impedance analysis and reported as lean mass, fat mass, and body fat percentage. RESULTS Overall, 12% (n=108) were WP smokers, 22% (n=196) were cigarette smokers, 9% (n=77) smoked both WP and cigarettes and 57% (n=498) were never smokers. Age, sex, history of diabetes, and hypertension, in addition to nationality were considered as confounding factors. Our analysis revealed that WP smokers had a significantly higher BMI (kg/m 2 ) and fat mass when compared with cigarette smokers (p<0.05). Moreover, compared to cigarette smoking, WP smoking had a higher significant effect on BMI (=3.8, SE=0.38; and =5.5, SE=0.46; respectively), and fat mass (=5.1, SE=0.79; and =9.0, SE=0.97; respectively). However, WP users were similar to never-smokers in terms of body fat percent. CONCLUSIONS Our data indicate that compared to never smokers, daily WP users have higher BMI and fat mass, and are likely to be obese.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.242 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTobacco Induced DiseasesSame topicDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and LipoproteinsFrench-language works237,207