Effect of Tobacco-Smoking on Cognitive Function among Young Adults in a Tertiary Care Hospital of North India-A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Around 25% of the world's population uses tobacco, with smoking being the most common form. Smoking is linked to long-term health issues, respiratory, cardiovascular, malignancies, neuropsychological dysfunction, and increased risk of depression and cognitive decline. The study aimed to compare non-smokers and tobacco smokers to assess cognitive function impact, hypothesizing smokers have poorer cognitive function.
 Methodology: This cross-sectional study involved 50 young adults, 25 smokers and 25 non-smokers, in a psychiatry outpatient department at AIIMS Bathinda, Punjab, India. Participants were healthy individuals, without serious medical conditions, drug dependence, or significant brain trauma. The study was approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee. Cognitive functions were assessed using Montreal cognitive assessment (MoCA) (7.1 version) and Fagerstrom Test was used to assess severity of Nicotine dependence among smokers. A p value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. 
 Results: Sample consisted of 25 male smokers and 25 non-smokers, with 64% aged 22-24 years. Both groups were comparable in in terms of age, education and socioeconomic status. There was no statistically significant difference in cognitive function (MoCA) across demographic profile of subjects. In comparison to tobacco smokers, non-users had a higher mean MoCA score (22.12 vs. 22.08). Abstraction and recall were significantly impaired (p values 0.048 and 0.007, respectively) in tobacco smokers. There was a significant association between cognitive function (MoCA) and nicotine dependency severity (Fagerstorm Test; p=0.026) among tobacco users.
 Conclusion: Tobacco smoking increases the risk of neurocognitive impairment, in young adults. The degree of smoking has an adverse effect on individuals' cognitive performance.
 Implications: Young adults frequently use tobacco, especially in the form of smoking. Smoking tobacco is thought to enhance performance and attention. However, the current study discovered that it was linked to diminished cognitive function in the areas of recall and attention. Additionally, smokers' cognition is considerably impaired due to the severity of their nicotine dependence. The study implies that in order to understand the relationship between tobacco smoking and cognitive functions, large-scale, prospective investigations are necessary. Additionally, including radiological evaluation of brain functions using functional MRI may provide clearer evidence of the areas of the brain affected by tobacco use.
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 | 0.018 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".