01 Vaping, mental and physical health in adolescents in a COMPASS-Quebec cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Better knowledge of the association between vaping and youth’s health would help raise awareness among adolescents, parents, professionals and decision-makers on the likely threat it represents. Objectives Our objective is to examine the association between vaping, its frequency, and adolescent health. Design/Methods This observational study is based on data from the 2022-23 survey round of COMPASS-Quebec school cohorts through self-reported measures. It includes 45,203 respondents aged from 12 to 18 years old from 99 schools of Eastern Quebec. A four-modality variable depicts the vaping frequency in the last twelve months (abstinence, < once/month, ≥ once/month, ≥ once/week, daily). The measurement of health states is based on 5 dichotomous indicators: (i) good vs poor physical health (excellent, very good, good, vs fair, poor), (ii) maximum oxygen consumption considered at risk for health vs not (estimated VO2max, calculated using Léger’s equation); (iii) good vs poor mental health (excellent, very good, good, vs fair, poor); (iv) the presence vs absence of moderate to severe anxiety (GAD7, score ≥10/30) and; (v) the presence vs absence of significant depressive symptoms (CESD-R, score ≥10/21). Sex, age and family material deprivation level are taken into account as confounding factors. Results The proportion of adolescents who have vaped in the last 12 months is 26.8%. After adjustment, daily vaping is associated with poor physical health, a VO2max considered at risk for health, poor mental health, moderate to severe anxiety and significant depressive symptoms, compared to abstinence (adjusted relative risk [aRR] 2,46 [95%CI: 2,05-2,88]; 1,66 [95%CI: 1,44-1,89]; 1,88 [95%CI: 1,66-2,11]; 1,75 [95%CI: 1,53-1,97]; 1,55 [95%CI: 1,40-1,70]). A gradient in the associations between vaping frequency and lower mental health indicators has been observed. Adolescents who have vaped Conclusion This study suggests a consistent association between health, both physical and mental, and use of electronic cigarettes in adolescents. Longitudinal studies would help clarify possible causal influence of vaping on youth's health.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".