MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

E-cigarette use and United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) lung cancer screening (LCS) eligibility.

2024· article· en· W4399304908 on OpenAlexaff
Qian Wang, Changchuan Jiang, Hui Xie, Zhiting Tang, Yannan Li, Matthew Mirsky, Chi Wen, Melinda Laine Hsu, Débora S. Bruno, Yaning Zhang, Afshin Dowlati, Lauren Chiec, Giselle Dutcher, Paolo Boffetta, Chung Yin Kong

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHead and Neck Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTask forceLung cancer screeningLung cancerFamily medicineCancerCigarette smokingOncologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

10531 Background: Electronic cigarettes (E-cigarettes) have become frequently used as a smoking cessation tool. Emerging research has shown that e-cigarettes have similar carcinogenic effects as combustible cigarettes. While current lung cancer screening (LCS) guidelines primarily rely on individuals’ smoking history, it's becoming increasingly important to understand the prevalence of e-cigarette use among individuals, especially in the context of their LCS eligibility. Methods: Individuals aged 40-80 years were extracted from the 2022 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. Eligibility was defined using the 2021 USPSTF LCS criteria, i.e., aged 50-80 years who ever smoked, with at least a 20-pack-year smoking history, currently smoke or quit within the past 15 years. We compared the prevalence of current and ever e-cigarette use among LCS-eligible and non-eligible populations, overall and by smoking (combustible cigarettes) status using chi-square tests. All analyses were weighted. The significance level was set at a 2-sided p-value of <0.05. Results: Among the 208,317 individuals included, 9.9% were eligible for LCS. Overall, 3.8% and 22.1% reported current and ever cigarette use, respectively. Fewer LCS-ineligible individuals reported currently using e-cigarettes than their LCS-eligible counterparts (Table). Among former combustible cigarette users, LCS-ineligible individuals were less likely to be current e-cigarette user than LCS-eligible individuals. However, among current combustible cigarette users, LCS-ineligible individuals were more likely to be current e-cigarettes users than LCS-eligible individuals. When examining the prevalence of ever e-cigarette use, similar findings were observed. Conclusions: Our study reveals a significant prevalence of e-cigarette usage among older adults (aged 40-80), with 1 in 5 individuals reporting ever having used e-cigarettes. Moreover, current cigarette users who were ineligible for LCS were more likely to use e-cigarette than their LCS-eligible counterparts. Future epidemiological studies are warranted to assess the risk of e-cigarette use (including intensity, duration and interactions with combustible cigarettes) and lung cancer risks. E-cigarette use may need to be considered in formulating future LCS guidelines. [Table: see text]

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.495
Teacher spread0.401 · 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
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicHead and Neck Cancer Studies→French-language works237,207→