MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392418120 · doi:10.53555/sfs.v10i5.2237

Assessment of Smoking Habits Among Patients with Chronic Disease at Hospitals

2023· article· en· W4392418120 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ebtsam Musaad Nazal Alshammari, Bodoor Hassan Ali Alzahranei, Jawaher Nasser Abdullah Binjamaia, Ghadeer Abdultif Mohmmad Alyati, Noora Madallah Abdullah Alrashedy, Mohammed Saad Abdulrhman Alderaihem

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Survey in Fisheries Sciences · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth and Wellbeing Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental healthMedicineDiseaseChronic diseaseFamily medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Smoking is well-known risk factor for the development and progression of chronic diseases. Patients with chronic diseases are particularly vulnerable to the harmful effects of smoking, yet many continue to smoke despite their condition. This study aims to assess the smoking habits among patients with chronic diseases at hospitals and explore potential interventions to help them quit smoking. A comprehensive review of the literature was conducted to examine the prevalence of smoking among patients with chronic diseases, the impact of smoking on their health outcomes, and the effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions in this population. The results indicate that a significant proportion of patients with chronic diseases continue to smoke, despite the known risks. Various factors contribute to this behavior including nicotine addiction, lack of awareness about the impact of smoking on their condition, and limited access to smoking cessation resources. Healthcare providers play a crucial role in addressing smoking habits among patients with chronic diseases and should incorporate smoking cessation interventions into their routine care. The findings from this study highlight the importance of implementing tailored strategies to help patients with chronic diseases quit smoking and improve their overall health outcomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.470

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.167
GPT teacher head0.433
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Survey in Fisheries SciencesSame topicHealth and Wellbeing ResearchFrench-language works237,207