MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405455919 · doi:10.1080/20905068.2024.2438942

The effects of tobacco smoking on cognitive function and hematological parameters: a comparative cross-sectional study

2024· article· en· W4405455919 on OpenAlexaff
Mahmood Abdalmonem Mohammed, Izzut Awad Ahmed, Hussam Mohammed Hassan, Muaath Ahmed Mohammed

Bibliographic record

VenueAlexandria Journal of Medicine · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLong-Term Effects of COVID-19
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCross-sectional studyCognitionEnvironmental healthGerontologyPsychiatryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background There is evidence that tobacco smoking negatively impacts mental and physical health. This study aimed to determine how tobacco smoking affects hemoglobin and cognitive functions of male smokers in Sudan.Methods This comparative - study involved 120 smokers and nonsmokers adult male participants. The smoker population was further subdivided into cigarette (CS) and water pipe (WP) smoker subgroups, as well as both the cigarette and water pipe (CSWP) smoker subgroup. The original Cognitive Failure Questionnaire (CFQ) was the tool used to gather the cognitive data. Standard techniques were employed to evaluate the hematological parameters. Many statistical tests were performed to examine the associations between the variables, with a p value <0.05 indicating statistical significance.Results Age ranged from 18–60 years, with a mean of 27.3 (±7.4 SD) years. For the smoker group, the mean duration of tobacco smoking was 9.1 (±5.5) years. The smokers had a total CFQ score of 40.4 (±21.2), whereas the nonsmokers had a score of 30.8 (±9.9). The CFQ scores of the smoker subgroup and the nonsmoker subgroup were significantly different (p value = 0.002). The hemoglobin level of the smokers was 16.16 (±1.6 g/dl), and that of the nonsmokers was 14.1 (±1.6 g/dl), with a significant statistical difference (p value = 0.001). The red blood cell count of the smokers was 5.4 × 1012 (±0.42 × 1012), whereas that of the nonsmokers was 5.14 × 1012 (±0.54 × 1012), with a significant statistical difference (p value = 0.015). The presence of polycythemia (high hemoglobin, red blood cell, and hematocrit levels) among the smokers did not significantly correlate with their total CFQ score (r = 0.024, p = 0.857; r = -0.082, p = 0.535; r = 0.001, p = 0.999, respectively).Conclusion Despite smokers exhibiting cognitive impairments and higher levels of polycythemia in comparison with nonsmokers, polycythemia cannot be considered a possible risk factor for cognitive impairment.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.457

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.333 · 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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlexandria Journal of MedicineSame topicLong-Term Effects of COVID-19French-language works237,207