MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4391967883 · doi:10.2196/54041

Tobacco Smoking or Nicotine Phenotype and Severity of Clinical Presentation at the Emergency Department (SMOPHED): Protocol for a Noninterventional Observational Study

2024· article· en· W4391967883 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Davide Campagna, Konstantinos Farsalinos, Giorgio Costantino, Giuseppe Carpinteri, Pasquale Caponnetto, Francesca Cucuzza, Riccardo Polosa

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSmoking Behavior and Cessation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObservational studyMedicineEmergency departmentProtocol (science)NicotinePresentation (obstetrics)Family medicineEnvironmental healthEmergency medicinePsychiatryAlternative medicineInternal medicineSurgeryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In the last few years, several nicotine products have become available as alternatives to smoking tobacco. While laboratory and limited clinical studies suggest that these devices are less toxic compared to classic tobacco cigarettes, very little is known about their epidemiological impact. Visiting the emergency department (ED) often represents the first or even the only contact of patients with the health care system. Therefore, a study conducted at the ED to assess the impact of these products on health can be reliable and reflect a real-life setting. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this noninterventional observational study (SMOPHED study) is to analyze the association between the severity of clinical presentation observed during ED visits among patients using various nicotine products and the subsequent outcomes, specifically hospitalization and mortality. METHODS: Outcomes (hospitalization and mortality in the ED) will be examined in relation to various patterns of nicotine products use. We plan to enroll approximately 2000 participants during triage at the ED. These individuals will be characterized based on their patterns of tobacco and nicotine consumption, identified through a specific questionnaire. This categorization will allow for a detailed analysis of how different usage patterns of nicotine products correlate with the clinical diagnosis made during the ED visits and the consequent outcomes. RESULTS: Enrollment into the study started in March 2024. We enrolled a total of 901 participants in 1 month (approximately 300 potential participants did not provide the informed consent to participate). The data will be analyzed by a statistician as soon as the database is completed. Full data will be published by December 2024. CONCLUSIONS: There is substantial debate about the harm reduction potential of alternative nicotine products in terms of their smoking-cessation and risk-reduction potential. This study represents an opportunity to document epidemiological data on the link between the use of different types of nicotine products and disease diagnosis and severity during an ED visit, and thus evaluate the harm reduction potential claims for these products. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/54041.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.134

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0050.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0370.009

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.

Opus teacher head0.682
GPT teacher head0.673
Teacher spread0.010 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research Protocols→Same topicSmoking Behavior and Cessation→French-language works237,207→