The impact of smoking on COVID-19 morbidity and mortality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many articles by foreign authors, published in scientific journals with a stable international reputation, contain claims that smoking tobacco reduces the likelihood of infection with SARS-CoV-2. To study this issue, a correlation analysis was carried out to assess the dependence between the proportion of women and men who smoke in 94 countries located in Eurasia, North and South America, Australia, where more than 64 % of the world’s population lives, and the incidence and mortality of the population from COVID-19 during the period from February 1 to November 21, 2021. The results showed that an increase in the proportion of the population who smokes is always accompanied by an increase in morbidity and mortality among the world’s population. This tendency is especially pronounced in Europe, the USA and Canada, with the most detrimental effect of smoking on the growth of mortality. The results obtained allow us to reject with a high degree of confidence the conclusions about the protective effect of smoking from infection with SARS-CoV-2 and provide the media, medical, educational and educational institutions with additional arguments for informing the population about the negative consequences of smoking, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 teacher head, 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".