Smoking is Associated With Impaired Long-term Quality of Life in Elderly People: A 22-year Cohort Study in NIPPON-DATA 90
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Whether smoking is associated with worse quality of life (QoL) or not is relatively controversial. The current study is to investigate the relationship between smoking and subjective QoL in a long cohort study. METHODS: The NIPPON DATA 90 project collected 8,383 community residents in 300 randomly selected areas as baseline data in 1990, administered four follow-up QoL surveys, and evaluated mortality statistics. We conducted multinomial logistic regression analysis to compare past smokers and current smokers to never smokers, with impaired QoL and mortality as outcomes. RESULTS: In four follow-ups, QoL data was collected from 2,035, 2,252, 2,522, and 3,280 participants in 1995, 2000, 2005, and 2012, respectively. In the 1995 follow-up, current smoking at baseline was not associated with worse QoL. In 2000 and 2005 follow-ups, smoking was significantly associated with worse QoL (odds ratio [OR] 2.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.33-3.36 and OR 2.29; 95% CI, 1.38-3.80, respectively). In the 2012 follow-up, smoking was not associated with QoL. Sensitivity analysis did not change the result significantly. CONCLUSION: In this study we found that baseline smoking was associated with worse QoL in long-follow-up.
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.
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 | 0.017 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it