MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400700525 · doi:10.47485/2998-4513.1035

Harm Reduction in Tobaccoism : What Does the Scientific Evidence Say?

2024· article· en· W4400700525 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational journal of cardiology and cardiovascular disorder. · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAlcohol Consumption and Health Effects
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReduction (mathematics)Harm reductionHarmPhilosophyPolitical scienceMedicineLawMathematicsVirology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Smoking is considered a chronic disease caused by chemical dependence of nicotine. This is highly addicting, it in the brain system it influences our emotions, increases the feeling of pleasure/humor and reduces the anxiety. In a planet with about 8 billion people, around 1,36 billion are smokers. Cigarette smoking is the leading cause of preventable death in the world, around 8 million people die every year. A global public health problem, and those who smoke are vulnerable to 50 tobacco-related diseases, several kinds of cancer, lung diseases, cardiovascular disease, erectile dysfunction, female infertility and pregnancy complications. In 2020, according to data from the World Health Organization, 22,3% of the world population consumed tobacco, 36,7% of men and 7,8%of women. In Brazil, due to policies implemented to smoking control, we had a significant drop in the of period (1989 to 2019) from 34,8% of smokers to 12,6% and in 2021, the total percentage of smokers age 18 or over was 9.1%. All forms of tobacco consumption are harmful to health and there is no safe level. Cigarette smoke 4.720 different toxic substances such as nicotine, irritants, tar and carbon monoxide. In the last 15 years, new heated tobacco devices have arrived on the market with promises of less harm to health. In 78 countries this products are available, including Japan, The United States, Canada, Portugal, Australia, Italy and The United Kingdom. As they do not cause tobacco combustion, they created significantly lower levels of toxic substances, which is the strongest arguments made by defenders of those products. A systematic review of the literature in 2018 on heated tobacco products identified 31 studies randomly and blind over those devices, 11 independent and 20 funded by the products manufacturers, needing further long-term research. Another systematic review (relevant studies from 2015 to February 2021), both “in vitro” as alive has shown that the benefits of heated tobacco are controversial and more research is needed to the short-and-long term health effects. Another large concern is that availability of these smokeless products may encourage cigarette consumption, especially among young people and often with the combined use of traditional cigarettes and heated tobacco products.

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)0.028
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.096
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.149

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0280.096
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.006
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0090.011
Open science0.0050.003
Research integrity0.0130.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.003

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.314 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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 venueInternational journal of cardiology and cardiovascular disorder.Same topicAlcohol Consumption and Health EffectsFrench-language works237,207