The effects of tobacco smoking on cognitive function and hematological parameters: a comparative cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".