MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4293483815 · doi:10.1016/j.pmedr.2022.101965

Predictors of past-year e-cigarette use among young adults

2022· article· en· W4293483815 on OpenAlexafffundabout
L C Struik, Erin K. O’Loughlin, Teodora Riglea, Jennifer O’Loughlin

Bibliographic record

VenuePreventive Medicine Reports · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSmoking Behavior and Cessation
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalUniversity of TorontoOkanagan University CollegeUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéCanadian Cancer Society
KeywordsYoung adultLogistic regressionEducational attainmentPsychological interventionImpulsivityMedicineEnvironmental healthCigarette smokingDemographyTobacco useNicotinePsychologyGerontologyClinical psychologyPsychiatryPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Understanding the underpinnings of e-cigarette use among young adults is critical to addressing increasing uptake. We identified predictors of past-year e-cigarette use among young adults in Montreal, Canada. Data on potential predictors were available for 714 young adults participating in the ongoing Nicotine Dependence in Teens Study at age 20 in 2007-08. Past-year e-cigarette use was measured at age 30 in 2017-20. Each potential predictor was studied in a separate multivariable logistic regression model controlling for age, sex, and educational attainment. Male sex, friends who smoke, cigarette smoking, use of other tobacco products, alcohol use, use of marijuana, and impulsivity predicted past-year e-cigarette use. Higher educational attainment and very good/excellent self-rated health were protective. Program and policy makers will need to consider these predictors of e-cigarette use in the design of clinical and public health interventions targeting e-cigarette use in young adults.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.253 · 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.

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

Citations9
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePreventive Medicine ReportsSame topicSmoking Behavior and CessationFrench-language works237,207