Using Bayesian evidence synthesis to quantify uncertainty in population trends in smoking behaviour
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Simulation models of smoking behaviour provide vital forecasts of exposure to inform policy targets, estimates of the burden of disease, and impacts of tobacco control interventions. A key element of useful model-based forecasts is a clear picture of uncertainty due to the data used to inform the model, however, assessment of this parameter uncertainty is incomplete in almost all tobacco control models. As a remedy, we demonstrate a Bayesian approach to model calibration that quantifies parameter uncertainty. With a model calibrated to Australian data, we observed that the smoking cessation rate in Australia has increased with calendar year since the late 20th century, and in 2016 people who smoked would quit at a rate of 4.7 quit-events per 100 person-years (90% equal-tailed interval (ETI): 4.5-4.9). We found that those who quit smoking before age 30 years switched to reporting that they never smoked at a rate of approximately 2% annually (90% ETI: 1.9-2.2%). The Bayesian approach demonstrated here can be used as a blueprint to model other population behaviours that are challenging to measure directly, and to provide a clearer picture of uncertainty to decision-makers.
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 | 0.147 | 0.371 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".