Table_1_A drink equals how many cigarettes? Equating mortality risks from alcohol and tobacco use in Canada.DOCX
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To quantify and communicate risk equivalencies for alcohol-and tobacco-attributable mortality by comparing per standard drinks consumed to per number of cigarettes smoked in Canada. Methods Alcohol-and tobacco-attributable premature deaths (≤75 years of age) and years of life lost (YLL) were estimated using a lifetime risk modeling approach. Alcohol-attributable death statistics were obtained from the 2023 Canadian Guidance on Alcohol and Health data source. Tobacco-attributable death statistics were derived from the Mortality Population Risk Tool (MPoRT) model. Results The risk of alcohol use on premature death and YLL increased non-linearly with the number of drinks consumed, while the risk for tobacco use on these two measures increased linearly with the number of cigarettes smoked. Males who consumed 5 drinks/day—a standard drink contains 13.45 grams of alcohol in Canada—had an equivalent risk as smoking 4.9 cigarettes/day (when modeling for premature death) and 5.1 cigarettes/day (when modeling for YLL). Females who consumed 5 drinks/day experienced an equivalent risk as smoking 4.2 cigarettes/day for premature deaths and YLL. At all levels of alcohol consumption females and males who consumed <5 drinks/day have less risks from consuming a standard drink than from smoking a cigarette. For males who consumed 5 drinks/day, the increased risks of death from per drink consumed and per cigarette smoked were equal. Conclusion Risk equivalencies comparing alcohol use to tobacco use could help people who drink improve their knowledge and understanding of the mortality risks associated with increased number of drinks consumed per day.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 teacher head, 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".