The association of sun-cured tobacco and cigarette use withglobal cognitive function, verbal fluency and memory inpatients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: Across-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Some elderly people in China prefer sun-cured tobacco to cigarettes, and the composition of sun-cured tobacco and cigarettes is inconsistent. The influence of cigarettes on the cognitive function of COPD patients has been widely reported, but the research on sun-cured tobacco is relatively rare. Our study explored the association of sun-cured tobacco and cigarette use with cognitive decline in COPD patients. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study. A total of 401 COPD patients were included, and 190, 103, and 108 participants were included in non-smoking, cigarette-smoking, and sun-cured tobacco groups, respectively. We evaluated the global cognitive function using the Beijing version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, verbal fluency function using an animal fluency test, and memory function using ten unrelated words. RESULTS: The participants of both cigarette-smoking (AOR=11.18; 95% CI: 1.28- 97.5) and sun-cured tobacco (AOR=10.46; 95% CI: 1.14-96.4) groups were more likely to develop mild cognitive impairment compared to the non-smoking group. The mean z scores of global cognitive function, verbal fluency, and memory were lower in cigarette-smoking and sun-cured tobacco groups than those in a non-smoking group; Multivariable linear regression showed that global cognitive function (β= -0.61; 95% CI: -1.04 - -0.18; and β= -0.48; 95% CI: -0.91 - -0.05) and verbal fluency (β= -0.79; 95% CI: -1.33 - -0.26; and β= -0.69; 95% CI: -1.23 - -0.16) of the sun-cured tobacco group and the cigarette-smoking group were significantly lower than those of the non-smoking group when adjusting for demographic and disease-related characteristics. However, there was no significant difference between the cigarette-smoking and sun-cured tobacco groups in global cognitive function, verbal fluency, and memory. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with non-smokers, the use of cigarettes and sun-cured tobacco may damage the cognitive function of COPD patients, especially in global cognitive function and verbal fluency.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".