Association between cigar use, with and without cigarettes, and incident diagnosed COPD: a longitudinal cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While regular cigar smoking is believed to carry similar health risks as regular cigarette smoking, the impact of cigar use, alone or in combination with cigarettes, on obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has not been well characterized. The purpose of this study was to examine the prospective association between exclusive and dual cigar and cigarette use and incident self-reported diagnosed COPD. METHODS: This study used data from Waves 1-5 (2013-2019) of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study, a nationally representative survey of U.S. adults. Longitudinal data from adults aged 40 to 79 at Wave 1, without a pre-existing COPD diagnosis who participated at follow-up interview were analyzed. A time-varying current tobacco exposure, lagged by one wave and categorized as: (a) never/non-current use; (b) exclusive cigar use; (c) exclusive cigarette use; and (d) dual cigar/cigarette use. Multivariable models adjusted for demographics (age, sex, race or ethnicity, education), clinical risk factors (asthma, obesity), and smoking-related confounders (second-hand smoke exposure, other combustible tobacco product use, e-cigarette use, time since quitting, cigarette pack-years). The incidence of self-reported diagnosed COPD was estimated using discrete-time survival models, using a general linear modeling (GLM) approach with a binomial distribution and a complementary log-log link function. RESULTS: The analytic sample consisted of 9,556 adults with a mean (SD) age of 56 (10.4), who were predominately female (52.8%) and Non-Hispanic White (70.8%). A total of 906 respondents reported a diagnosis of COPD at follow-up. In the fully adjusted model, exclusive cigar use (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) = 1.57, 95% CI: 0.77, 3.21) was not associated with increased COPD risk compared to non-use, while exclusive cigarette use (aHR = 1.48, 95% CI: 1.13, 1.93) and dual cigar/cigarette use (aHR = 1.88, 95% CI: 1.24, 2.85) were. CONCLUSIONS: Exclusive cigarette use and dual cigar/cigarette use were associated with diagnosed incident COPD. These results suggest that cigars, when used in combination with cigarettes, may be associated with poorer COPD health outcomes. Dual use may promote a higher likelihood of inhaling cigar smoke, and future research would benefit from examining whether inhalation of cigar smoke increases COPD risk.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.000 | 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 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".