MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411784005 · doi:10.1097/cxa.0000000000000242

Sex Differences in the Association of Tobacco Use with Sleep Patterns in Adults

2025· article· en· W4411784005 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Shakila Meshkat, Vanessa K. Tassone, Reinhard Janssen‐Aguilar, Wendy Lou, Venkat Bhat

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Addiction · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and related disorders
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAssociation (psychology)Tobacco useDemographySleep (system call)PsychologyGerontologyMedicineSociologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Objectives: We aimed to assess the relationships of sleep duration and trouble sleeping with tobacco use, as well as sex differences in these associations. Methods: Data from the 2005 to 2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey were used. Multinomial logistic regression was used to investigate the relationship between tobacco use and sleep duration, while logistic regression models examined the association between tobacco use and sleep difficulties, with stratification by sex for significant interactions. Results: This study included 33,923 participants, with 8666 (26.41%) reporting trouble sleeping. Individuals who reported smoking cigarettes had increased odds of having shorter [adjusted odds ratio (aOR)=1.63; CI=1.47, 1.80; P <0.001] or longer (aOR=1.53; CI=1.21, 1.93; P <0.001) than average sleep durations, as well as higher odds of experiencing trouble sleeping (aOR=1.41; CI=1.26, 1.58; P <0.001) compared with nontobacco users. In addition, participants who reported smoking other forms of tobacco had increased odds of having shorter-than-average sleep durations (aOR=1.26; CI=1.04, 1.53; P =0.018). There were no significant associations between the use of other tobacco products and trouble sleeping. Female cigarette users had greater odds of having trouble sleeping (aOR=1.58; CI=1.38, 1.81; P <0.001) than males. Conclusion: Cigarette smoking is significantly associated with both long and short sleep durations and trouble sleeping. Future studies should seek to replicate these findings and evaluate the mechanisms underlying this phenomenon. Objectifs: Nous avons cherché à évaluer la durée du sommeil et les troubles du sommeil en relation avec le tabagisme, ainsi que les différences entre les sexes dans ces associations. Méthodes: Nous avons utilisé les données de l’enquête nationale sur la santé et la nutrition en provenance de 2005-2018. La régression logistique multinomiale a été utilisée pour étudier la relation entre le tabagisme et la durée du sommeil, tandis que les modèles de régression logistique ont examiné l’association entre le tabagisme et les troubles du sommeil, avec une stratification par sexe pour les interactions significatives. Résultats: Cette étude a inclus 33 923 participants, dont 8 666 (26,41%) ont signalé des troubles du sommeil. Les personnes ayant déclaré fumer des cigarettes avaient plus de chances d’avoir des durées de sommeil plus courtes (aOR=1,63 ; CI=1,47, 1,80 ; P <0.001)) ou plus longues (aOR=1,53 ; CI=1,21, 1,93 ; P <0,001) que la moyenne, ainsi que plus de chances d’avoir des troubles du sommeil (aOR=1,41 ; CI=1,26, 1,58 ; P <0,001) par rapport aux non-consommateurs de tabac. En outre, les participants ayant déclaré fumer d’autres formes de tabac étaient plus susceptibles d’avoir des durées de sommeil plus courtes que la moyenne (aOR=1,26 ; CI=1,04, 1,53 ; P =0,018). Il n’y avait pas d’association significative entre la consommation d’autres produits du tabac et les troubles du sommeil. Les femmes consommant des cigarettes étaient plus susceptibles d’avoir des troubles du sommeil (aOR=1,58 ; CI=1,38, 1,81 ; P <0,001) que les hommes. Conclusion: Le tabagisme est associé de manière significative à des durées de sommeil longues et courtes et à des troubles du sommeil. Les études futures devraient chercher à reproduire ces résultats et à évaluer les mécanismes sous-jacents à ce phénomène.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.567
Threshold uncertainty score0.941

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of AddictionSame topicSleep and related disordersFrench-language works237,207