MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412387238 · doi:10.3390/healthcare13141686

Short-Term Tobacco Abstinence: Effects on Emotional Balance and Psychological Alienation

2025· article· en· W4412387238 on OpenAlexaff
Alean Al‐Krenawi, Numan Al-Natsheh, Feras Ali Mohammad Al-Habies, Ahmad N. Abudoush, Somaya Abdel-Hameed Al-Ja'afreh, Ashraf Alqudah, Amal Salem Awawdeh

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSmoking Behavior and Cessation
Canadian institutionsAlgoma UniversityUniversity of TorontoDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlienationAbstinenceFeelingPsychologyBalance (ability)Clinical psychologySocial psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Emerging evidence suggests that abstaining from tobacco smoking can influence emotional control and psychological well-being. This study examines the impact of short-term tobacco abstinence on emotional balance and psychological alienation through an experimental design. METHODS: = 71) continued smoking as usual. Emotional balance and psychological alienation were assessed across all groups. RESULTS: Participants who abstained from smoking (both 24 h and 48 h groups) reported lower scores on emotional balance and higher psychological alienation compared to the control group. Moreover, those in the 48 h abstinence group experienced significantly greater emotional imbalance and psychological alienation than those in the 24 h group. A significant negative correlation was found between emotional balance and psychological alienation in the 24 h abstinence and control groups, but not in the 48 h group. CONCLUSIONS: The findings indicate that short-term tobacco abstinence negatively affects emotional stability and increases feelings of psychological alienation. These effects are more pronounced after 48 h of abstinence compared to 24 h.

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 score0.104
Threshold uncertainty score0.251

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.348 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcareSame topicSmoking Behavior and CessationFrench-language works237,207