MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7117667055 · doi:10.1111/imj.70307

Physical multimorbidity and quit outcomes in a publicly funded smoking cessation programme

2025· article· en· W7117667055 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Polina Kyrychenko, Benjamin K. C. Wong, Scott Veldhuizen, Nadia Minian, Laurie Zawertailo, Peter Selby, Osnat Melamed

Bibliographic record

VenueInternal Medicine Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSmoking Behavior and Cessation
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthPublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of TorontoGovernment of Ontario
KeywordsSmoking cessationMultimorbidityOddsOdds ratioComorbidityMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To examine the association between physical multimorbidity and 6-month quit outcomes among treatment-seeking smokers. METHODS: We analysed data from 120 732 adults enrolled in Ontario's largest publicly funded smoking cessation programme. At enrolment, participants self-reported zero, one or two or more chronic physical health conditions. The primary outcome was 7-day point prevalence abstinence at 6 months. We used mixed-effects logistic regression to assess the association between multimorbidity and quit outcomes, adjusting for demographic and tobacco use characteristics. RESULTS: Of participants, 39.4% reported no conditions, 26.8% reported one and 33.8% reported two or more. Those with multimorbidity were older, had lower socioeconomic status and showed higher tobacco dependence but also greater motivation to quit. Compared to individuals without comorbidities, those with one condition (OR = 0.94, 95% CI: 0.90-0.98) and those with two or more (OR = 0.81, 95% CI: 0.77-0.85) had lower odds of quitting. Mental health conditions further reduced quit success among those with physical multimorbidity. DISCUSSION: Physical multimorbidity is associated with 19% lower odds of cessation success despite high motivation to quit. Tailored, intensive cessation support may improve outcomes for this high-risk group.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.445

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.327 · 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 routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternal Medicine JournalSame topicSmoking Behavior and CessationFrench-language works237,207