ライフサイエンスコーパス: smoker

1 smokers (33.5%) than in the BE group (52.6% smokers).

2 or poor (PR, n = 7; including five cigarette smokers).

3 unger and less likely to be hypertensive and smokers.

4 are needed to assess this within abstaining smokers.

5 ous activity in the resting state in chronic smokers.

6 oft tissue status in healthy smokers and non-smokers.

7 only lysine was depleted in biofilm from non-smokers.

8 nerability in 2 independent studies of adult smokers.

9 ing augmented risk to periodontitis, such as smokers.

10 ater opportunities for detection among never smokers.

11 nd in patients with COPD compared with never-smokers.

12 ive; 22% were diabetic; and 15% were current smokers.

13 ost all of which are affected only in female smokers.

14 hip between ambient PM2.5 and LC among never smokers.

15 atio to forced vital capacity (FVC) in never-smokers.

16 erapy may also result in clinical benefit in smokers.

17 ever vs current smokers, and never vs former smokers.

18 ibution in non-alpha-1 antitrypsin-deficient smokers.

19 CHD protection in never-smokers than in ever-smokers.

20 ed among ADHD smokers compared with non-ADHD smokers.

21 altrexone was superior to placebo only among smokers.

22 can American (AA) and European American (EA) smokers.

23 s old and 47% male with 47.2% current/former smokers.

24 on has been shown to increase quitting among smokers.

25 D2R did not differ between nonsmokers and ex-smokers.

26 contribute to the loss of CHD protection in smokers.

27 smoked and a reference group of twelve never smokers.

28 scores compared with both nonsmokers and ex-smokers.

29 ncreased striatal activation only among ADHD smokers.

30 ion of nondrug and drug rewards in abstinent smokers.

31 ver, ex-drinkers/smokers or current drinkers/smokers.

32 ayed loaded (DL) implants in smokers and non-smokers.

33 ssion was lower in COPD patients compared to smokers.

34 creased behavioral aggression seen in active smokers.

35 disease in normal-appearing lung regions in smokers.

36 correlated with years of smoking across the smokers.

37 volving healthy individuals, asthmatics, and smokers.

38 o smokers having 16.8% lower values than non-smokers.

39 or clinical effect either in non-smokers or smokers.

40 among those younger than 70 years and never-smokers.

41 table associations were observed among never smokers.

42 er expression in COPD current compared to ex-smokers.

43 of the asthmatic smokers compared to the non-smokers.

44 sers of cannabis, adjusted for ever vs never smoker: 1.41; 95% CI, 1.09-1.83).

45 lyzed D2R availability measures of 8 current smokers, 10 ex-smokers, and 18 nonsmokers who were scann

46 ents (screening cohort) encompassing 8 never-smokers, 10 smokers without airflow limitation, and 12 s

47 The study included 24 nicotine-dependent smokers (12 women and 12 men; mean [SD] age, 35.8 [9.9]

48 Comparing 111 COPD cases and 40 control smokers, 204 genes were differentially expressed; none w

49 ysis of nicotine dependence, totaling 38,602 smokers (28,677 Europeans/European Americans and 9925 Af

50 patients as nonsmokers (< 3.1 ng/mL), light smokers (3.1-20.9 ng/mL), or heavy smokers (>/= 21.0 ng/

51 patients in the irregular Z-line group were smokers (33.5%) than in the BE group (52.6% smokers).

52 -83 years); male, 28 (67%); smoker or former smoker, 39 (93%); stage III, 38 (90%).

53 likely female (81% vs 60%; p<0.001) and non-smokers (53% vs 42%; p=0.004).

54 full-term pregnancy <30y of age (79%), never-smokers (56%) with body mass indexes (BMIs) of <29.9( )k

55 ean age, 47 [SD, 16.0] years; 63% women; 17% smokers; 77% phlegm; 70% shortness of breath; 47% wheezi

56 [CI] 1.3, 9.5; P = .02) and 3.3 for current smokers (95% CI 1.1, 9.7; P = .03).

57 ive risk vs never-smokers was 3.4 for former smokers (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.3, 9.5; P = .02)

58 Current smokers (aged >/=16 years) were identified from medical

59 Patients were non-smokers, aged >/=40 years, and using antidiabetic drugs.

60 Comparing abstinent with sated scans, smokers also exhibited significantly decreased mid-insul

61 On both occasions, smokers also underwent functional magnetic resonance ima

62 n 30 years old, a female, an ever water pipe smoker, an ever alcohol consumer are significantly assoc

63 20 positive measurements above the LOD, with smoker and nonsmoker DNA containing 3.1 and 1.3 BPDE-N(2

64 5 doses were combined and applied to current smoker and nonsmoker lung cancer and cardiac mortality r

65 and cardiac mortality, approximately 1% for smokers and 0.3% for nonsmokers.

66 r, approximately 4% for long-term continuing smokers and 0.3% for nonsmokers; and cardiac mortality,

67 Here, we use GWAS data from 51,080 current smokers and 190,178 nonsmokers (87% European descent) to

68 In the present study, 55 smokers and 49 healthy nonsmokers were included.

69 tional magnetic resonance imaging data in 66 smokers and 92 nonsmokers.

70 , those with pseudophakia and those who were smokers and consumed alcohol.

71 is up-regulated and nuclear translocated in smokers and COPD, and their expression is closely relate

72 ure, sex differences were present in both ex-smokers and current smokers for cigarettes per day (P fo

73 oor oral health and oral health habits among smokers and determine if trying to quit smoking is assoc

74 her smoker nor drink, only patients who both smokers and drinkers were associated with reduced surviv

75 s recruited to SPIROMICS, 2499 patients were smokers and had available blood counts, and so were stra

76 both genders but slightly stronger in former smokers and in participants diagnosed with squamous cell

77 NA methylation and comparing smokers, former smokers and never smokers in two Swedish cohorts, differ

78 Smokers and non-smokers differed in whole-brain SUVs (P=

79 plant hard and soft tissue status in healthy smokers and non-smokers.

80 ded (IL) and delayed loaded (DL) implants in smokers and non-smokers.

81 Nicotine-dependent smokers and nonsmokers completed a probabilistic reversa

82 Our findings were consistent among both smokers and nonsmokers.

83 mass among susceptible populations including smokers and persons with emphysema.

84 iology of periodontal disease progression in smokers and suggest that focused therapies that target k

85 d inflammatory functioning compared with non-smokers and that constituents of tobacco smoke other tha

86 Forty-three smokers and thirty-seven non-smokers who met DSM-IV crit

87 ore likely to be reported among female never smokers and those who had been exposed for >/=20 years.

88 o task; both reductions were "normalized" in smokers (and increased in nonsmokers) after acute nicoti

89 nce was performed, with group (smoker vs non-smoker) and genotype as factors, thereby controlling for

90 individuals have zero exposure (e.g., never smokers) and among those exposed the variable has a cont

91 mortality rate difference (current vs former smokers) and the probability of cancer being mutagen-ind

92 or CS-exposed) and humans (current or former smokers), and analyzed using mass spectrometry.

93 pic differences between the father, who is a smoker, and his daughter.

94 ability measures of 8 current smokers, 10 ex-smokers, and 18 nonsmokers who were scanned with positro

95 , lower/upper quartile: 49.8/68.3 years; six smokers, and 9 IL-1 positive) were included for analysis

96 rationale for the higher AD prevalence among smokers, and indicate that certain forms of lead in part

97 for never vs ever smokers, never vs current smokers, and never vs former smokers.

98 larger RV mass among former smokers, current smokers, and persons with emphysema, respectively.

99 sensitivity analysis in the subset of never-smokers, and these two probes are known to be strongly a

100 opausal women and in smokers compared to non-smokers, and was positively correlated with urinary MDA.

101 nts with higher WBC were more often younger, smokers, and with less comorbid risk factors compared wi

102 contained similar doses of nicotine as human smokers are exposed to, we argue that our model mimics h

103 ycotinine/cotinine) computed, characterising smokers as slow (NMR < 0.31) or normal (NMR >/= 0.31) me

104 dence interval (CI): 1.28, 3.68) and being a smoker at the time of enlistment (HR = 1.91, 95% CI: 1.3

105 iation was observed only in past and current smokers at the end of follow-up [HR=1.00 (95% CI: 0.94,

106 ients who are alcohol drinkers and long-term smokers before diagnosis have a significantly higher ris

107 eater functional connectivity strength among smokers but not nonsmokers.

108 ate-induced DA release tended to be lower in smokers but the difference was not significant (p=0.08).

109 vs 3.87% in smokers with none; P < .0001) in smokers, but did not increase risk of HCC in nonsmokers.

110 ed in blood and squamous epithelial cells of smokers, but not in lung cancer.

111 All AAs were depleted in biofilm from smokers, but only lysine was depleted in biofilm from no

112 t vitamin C may reduce TB risk among current smokers by ameliorating oxidative stress, while vitamin

113 l that vitamin C supplementation to pregnant smokers can lessen the impact of maternal smoking on off

114 , putamen, and ventral striatum) and with ex-smokers (caudate and putamen).

115 ausal compared to premenopausal women and in smokers compared to non-smokers, and was positively corr

116 ted in the bronchial mucosa of the asthmatic smokers compared to the non-smokers.

117 decreases in activation observed among ADHD smokers compared with non-ADHD smokers.

118 5) was statistically significantly higher in smokers compared with non-smokers in both groups.

119 ) were statistically significantly higher in smokers compared with non-smokers in patients with IL an

120 ses to external stimuli in chronic cigarette smokers compared with nonsmokers, only a few studies ass

121 as statistically significantly higher in non-smokers compared with smokers in both groups.

122 uffs was higher than the amount inhaled by a smoker consuming 10 conventional cigarettes per day.

123 erceived oral symptoms (OSs) among cigarette smokers (CSs) (group 1), individuals exclusively vaping

124 Compared with never smokers, current smokers had significantly lower risks o

125 5% CI: 0.4, 2.5) larger RV mass among former smokers, current smokers, and persons with emphysema, re

126 Heavy smokers defined by prediagnostic circulating cotinine le

127 e data support the hypothesis that asthmatic smokers develop neutrophilic inflammation of the airways

128 significant advances in screening high-risk smokers, diagnostic modalities, and chemopreventive appr

129 Smokers and non-smokers differed in whole-brain SUVs (P=0.006) owing to

130 metry use is only recommended in symptomatic smokers, even though early stages of COPD can be asympto

131 s obtained from nonsmoking patients with SA, smokers/ex-smokers with severe asthma, nonsmoking patien

132 Our findings show that abstained smokers exhibited a heightened reward positivity to ciga

133 Many cigarette smokers express a desire to quit smoking, but 85% of ce

134 were present in both ex-smokers and current smokers for cigarettes per day (P for interactionex = 6.

135 ociations seemed to be stronger among former smokers (for fourth quartile vs. first quartile, odds ra

136 ng genome-wide DNA methylation and comparing smokers, former smokers and never smokers in two Swedish

137 acco) at 3 academic sites included 169 daily smokers from the following 3 vulnerable populations: ind

138 ed by comparing blood levels among cigarette smokers from the National Health and Nutrition Examinati

139 ncrease in obese patients (grade A), current smokers (grade A), and patients with glycosylated hemogl

140 ents with BMI >/= 50 kg/m (grade C), current smokers (grade A), or patients with HbA1C >/= 8.0% (grad

141 L), light smokers (3.1-20.9 ng/mL), or heavy smokers (>/= 21.0 ng/mL).

142 In conclusion, current smokers had a lower incidence of BCC (possibly because o

143 sured within 5 years before diagnosis, heavy smokers had a multivariable-adjusted HR for death of 2.4

144 On further analysis, current smokers had fewer skin examinations and procedures than

145 tional analyses showed that current vs never smokers had lower risk of hay fever (odds ratio (OR) = 0

146 Sixteen tobacco smokers had one set of [(11)C]FLB457 PET scans on the sa

147 Compared with never smokers, current smokers had significantly lower risks of BCC (hazard rat

148 gher among patients who were white, younger, smokers, had a history of Medical Assistance, and had ot

149 Smokers have an increased incidence and severity of peri

150 with much prior research demonstrating that smokers have impaired inflammatory functioning compared

151 Many smokers have recently turned to electronic cigarettes (e

152 rimary outcome were more likely to be older, smokers, have a history of hemorrhagic stroke, hypothyro

153 fered in whole-brain SUVs (P=0.006) owing to smokers having 16.8% lower values than non-smokers.

154 I: 0.94, 1.07) based on 2,215 cases in never smokers; HR=1.10 (95% CI: 1.01, 1.19) based on 1,034 cas

155 ficantly higher in smokers compared with non-smokers in both groups.

156 ficantly higher in non-smokers compared with smokers in both groups.

157 ficantly higher in smokers compared with non-smokers in patients with IL and DL dental implants.

158 After controlling for confounding, among smokers in the 2014 BRFSS, trying to quit was associated

159 with bolus injection of [(11)C]DAA1106 (with smokers in the satiated state) and blood draws during PE

160 Among smokers in the United States, trying to quit is associat

161 better oral health or oral health habits in smokers in the United States.

162 comparing smokers, former smokers and never smokers in two Swedish cohorts, differing for known MS r

163 Among the 169 daily smokers included in the analysis (120 women [71.0%] and

164 with smaller alterations in current tobacco smokers, increased production of antioxidants in individ

165 onmental tobacco smoke (ETS) exposure of non-smokers is associated with a two- to three-fold increase

166 In non-smokers, levels were similar to those reached transientl

167 Frequent decrease of FSTL1 expression in smokers LUAD further indicates its importance and therap

168 Never-smoker males drinking </=1 glass/week had significantly

169 hese results suggest that with abstinence ex-smokers may recover from low striatal D2R availability a

170 data from 20 moderately dependent cigarette smokers (mean age = 25 years; no history of neuropsychia

171 e Stop Smoking Services (SSSs) offer help to smokers motivated to quit; however, attendance rates are

172 ary patterns and metabolites in male Finnish smokers (n = 1336) from 5 nested case-control studies wi

173 In study 2, a separate group of smokers (n = 26) performed the same IC task during fMRI,

174 igarette Purchase Task (CPT) in male regular smokers (N = 35).

175 In study 1, treatment-seeking smokers (n = 81) completed an IC task during functional

176 combined), comparing data for never vs ever smokers, never vs current smokers, and never vs former s

177 from healthy controls, normal lung function smokers (NLFS), and COPD subjects.

178 A subset of subjects (n = 23/20; smokers/nonsmokers) performed the monetary incentive del

179 Compared to those who neither smoker nor drink, only patients who both smokers and dri

180 g electronic cigarettes (group 2), and never-smokers (NSs) (group 3).

181 hly similar levels of nicotine compared with smokers of combustible cigarettes only, but results vari

182 obacco-related carcinogens, and toxins among smokers of combustible cigarettes only, former smokers w

183 rd-related behavior and may help explain how smokers of menthol cigarettes exhibit reduced cessation

184 Understanding why the quit rate among smokers of menthol cigarettes is lower than non-menthol

185 ciation studies were performed in 5070 never-smokers of the identification cohort LifeLines, and resu

186 was seen for vitamin C intake among current smokers only.

187 years (range, 45-83 years); male, 28 (67%); smoker or former smoker, 39 (93%); stage III, 38 (90%).

188 ients were categorized as never, ex-drinkers/smokers or current drinkers/smokers.

189 Exclusion criteria included current smokers or former smokers with a history of at least ten

190 o cognitive or clinical effect either in non-smokers or smokers.

191 on of rs660895-(AG+GG) with PD seen in never smokers (OR = 0.64, p < 0.001) disappeared among ever sm

192 OR = 0.64, p < 0.001) disappeared among ever smokers (OR = 1.00, p = 0.99).

193 oking (>/=30 cigarettes per day) among daily smokers (OR = 1.08; 95%CI = 1.02-1.15).

194 (OR = 2.83, 95% CI: 1.18, 6.75) and current smokers (OR = 1.30, 95% CI: 0.69, 2.44) for IL-8.

195 dence interval (CI): 1.55, 4.70) and current smokers (OR = 1.99, 95% CI: 1.15, 3.44) for IL-6 and amo

196 5% CI: 1.15, 3.44) for IL-6 and among former smokers (OR = 2.83, 95% CI: 1.18, 6.75) and current smok

197 : 1.3 to 2.4; P = 0.002) as well as in never-smokers (OR: 2.0, 95% CI: 1.2 to 3.5; P = 0.01).

198 "Excellent"); and less likely to be current smokers (ORadj = 0.3 (0.3-0.4)).

199 tus was stronger in women (odds ratio for ex-smokers [ORex], 1.44; ORcurrent, 3.45) than in men (ORex

200 o 1.69) comparing current smokers with never smokers ( P = .003).

201 FEV1 decline was greater in smokers (P < 0.001), but there was no effect of any earl

202 th a decreased risk of rosacea among current smokers (P for trend < 0.0001).

203 with an elevated risk of rosacea among past smokers (P for trend = 0.003) and with a decreased risk

204 sociated with lower CHD risk by 12% in never-smokers (P=1.3x10(-16)) in comparison with 5% in ever-sm

205 P=1.3x10(-16)) in comparison with 5% in ever-smokers (P=2.5x10(-4)), translating to a 60% loss of CHD

206 95% CI: 1.07, 1.37) for 300 cases in current smokers; p-interaction=0.08].

207 rformed a metabolomic analysis of 1,282 male smoker participants based on pre-supplementation fasting

208 elial type II (ATII) cells of never-smokers, smokers, patients with COPD, and two experimental COPD m

209 es in blood leukocytes of apparently healthy smokers predicts with remarkable efficiency diseases and

210 er used any tobacco daily, pure ever tobacco smokers, pure ever snus users, and combined users had ad

211 ctive in future research and to suggest that smokers quit smoking as soon as possible, regardless of

212 Female smokers randomized to 21 mg nicotine (TNP; n=37) or plac

213 Smokers rated cigarette pictures as significantly more p

214 A total of 17 cigarette smokers rated the pleasantness of cigarette pictures whe

215 Smokers receiving ABT-436 smoked significantly fewer cig

216 former smokers was similar to that for never smokers, regardless of time since quitting.

217 effects, treatment of periodontal disease in smokers remains a challenge of periodontal therapy.

218 t role in tumor initiation or progression in smokers, representing novel therapeutic targets for brea

219 menthol cigarettes is lower than non-menthol smokers requires identifying the neurons that are altere

220 he left mid-insula predicted the increase in smoker's pleasantness ratings of cigarette cues.

221 bserved when we investigated light and heavy smokers separately.

222 Mendelian randomization analyses in current smokers showed a slightly lower risk of hay fever (OR =

223 The smokers showed significantly decreased fALFF in the left

224 For behavioral measures, current smokers showed significantly higher aggression scores co

225 line striatal D2R availability; with current smokers showing lower striatal D2R availability compared

226 Moreover, light smokers significantly resulted to be NC compared with RC

227 substance use combination as controls (CTR), smokers (SMK), drinkers (DRN), smoking-and-drinking subj

228 lar epithelial type II (ATII) cells of never-smokers, smokers, patients with COPD, and two experiment

229 within-subject cross-over design, 36 healthy smokers (Study 1) and 62 smokers with schizophrenia (Stu

230 The 10-fold lower DMXB-A plasma levels in smokers suggest that chronic smoking enhances DMXB-A met

231 atment reduced [(11)C]FLB457 BPND in tobacco smokers, suggesting an increase in dopaminergic tone.

232 skin examinations and procedures than never smokers, suggesting greater opportunities for detection

233 nd the persistence of methylation changes in smokers support our hypothesis, for which a mechanistic

234 n disproportionately underreport smoking and smokers tend to have lower follow-up rates to repeat que

235 ion confers stronger CHD protection in never-smokers than in ever-smokers.

236 The ND-E/I ratio was greater in smokers than in nonsmokers, and it progressively increas

237 We identified heavy smokers that were resistant (n = 65) or susceptible (n =

238 g cessation should be offered to all current smokers; that management of detected solid nodules shoul

239 he benefits, yet for most nonsmokers (and ex-smokers), the benefits of radiotherapy far outweigh the

240 Conclusion For long-term smokers, the absolute risks of modern radiotherapy may o

241 After limiting the dataset to smokers, the designated exposure was respondent's report

242 Among never smokers there was also no evidence of an association of

243 Because the CYP2A6 effect was seen only in smokers, these data suggest that the rate of nicotine me

244 of the heterogeneity of pulmonary disease in smokers, they have not yet translated into new treatment

245 Tobacco smokers titrate their nicotine intake to avoid its noxio

246 We compared responses of 46 young adult smokers to research cigarettes, delivering 0.027, 0.110,

247 We randomly assigned 4384 smokers to the intervention group (n=2636) or the contro

248 lood pressure, and the percentage of current smokers varied by income strata (P </= .02 for interacti

249 lysis of variance was performed, with group (smoker vs non-smoker) and genotype as factors, thereby c

250 terval [CI]: 11.0, 64.4; P = .006), smoking (smokers vs nonsmokers, 45.2 mm(3); 95% CI: 7.1, 83.4; P

251 CI: 1.01, 1.19) based on 1,034 cases in past smokers vs. HR=1.21 (95% CI: 1.07, 1.37) for 300 cases i

252 ignatures of decreased reward sensitivity in smokers (vs nonsmokers; familywise error-corrected P < .

253 SOCA was smoking; the relative risk vs never-smokers was 3.4 for former smokers (95% confidence inter

254 ated with cognitive flexibility in abstinent smokers was restored to the level of nonsmokers followin

255 Survival among former smokers was similar to that for never smokers, regardles

256 Among smokers, we observed no dose-response trends with durati

257 putational modeling indicated that abstinent smokers were biased toward response shifting and that th

258 ossover trial including 19 otherwise healthy smokers who abstained from smoking for 36 h.

259 significant association persisted among past smokers who had quit over 30 years before.

260 Forty-three smokers and thirty-seven non-smokers who met DSM-IV criteria for schizophrenia were e

261 e SNPs, rs31746, in an independent sample of smokers who participated in an intravenous nicotine infu

262 , in contrast, are usually current or former smokers who present after the age of 40 years with sympt

263 Among baseline non-past 30-day cigarette smokers who were past 30-day e-cigarette users, past 30-

264 patient's father is not anemic, but he is a smoker with high levels of HbCO ( approximately 16%).

265 A 60-year-old former smoker with metastatic melanoma presented with the chief

266 Adult daily smokers with (n=17) and without (n=20) ADHD completed fM

267 0-year cumulative incidence of HCC (25.0% in smokers with 3 or more metabolic risk factors vs 3.87% i

268 criteria included current smokers or former smokers with a history of at least ten pack-years.

269 n activation during smoking withdrawal among smokers with ADHD.

270 Twenty-two ex-smokers with combined chronic obstructive pulmonary dise

271 l airways (<2 mm in diameter) from 50 former smokers with COPD and 39 control subjects.

272 0 smokers without airflow limitation, and 12 smokers with COPD.

273 in PI, BOP, PD >/=4 mm, and total CBL among smokers with IL and DL implants.

274 ed: combustible cigarette-only users, former smokers with long-term (>/=6 months) e-cigarette-only or

275 okers of combustible cigarettes only, former smokers with long-term e-cigarette use only, former smok

276 Former smokers with long-term e-cigarette-only or NRT-only use

277 with long-term e-cigarette use only, former smokers with long-term nicotine replacement therapy (NRT

278 .37 (95% CI, 1.11 to 1.69) comparing current smokers with never smokers ( P = .003).

279 3 or more metabolic risk factors vs 3.87% in smokers with none; P < .0001) in smokers, but did not in

280 r possible efficacy in smoking cessation, in smokers with or without schizophrenia.

281 Among current smokers with PAD, smoking cessation counseling or medica

282 y control, and these effects are greater for smokers with preexisting attention problems, such as att

283 Smokers with psychiatric conditions and socioeconomic di

284 To examine how smokers with psychiatric disorders and other vulnerabili

285 design, 36 healthy smokers (Study 1) and 62 smokers with schizophrenia (Study 2), both groups high i

286 from nonsmoking patients with SA, smokers/ex-smokers with severe asthma, nonsmoking patients with mil

287 centrations were higher in current or former smokers with severe COPD than in controls who had never

288 ons of MUC5B and MUC5AC in current or former smokers with severe COPD were approximately 3 times as h

289 After nicotine infusion, abstinent smokers with the withdrawal risk allele experienced grea

290 R-218-5p was significantly down-regulated in smokers without airflow limitation and in patients with

291 ing cohort) encompassing 8 never-smokers, 10 smokers without airflow limitation, and 12 smokers with

292 COPD or similar acute respiratory events in smokers without airflow obstruction affect lung function

293 A proportion of 26.3% of smokers without airflow obstruction had ND-E/I greater t

294 In never- and ever-smokers without airflow obstruction, aging is associated

295 revalent in normal-appearing lung regions in smokers without airflow obstruction, and it is associate

296 ons of COPD (and acute respiratory events in smokers without COPD) and the change in lung function ov

297 In 26 patients with COPD, 24 ever-smokers without COPD, 32 nonsmokers who underwent a rena

298 Among 580 never- and ever-smokers without obstruction or respiratory impairment, P

299 s cardiovascular events [yes or no], current smoker [yes or no], and diabetes [yes or no]), and their

300 Inverse associations were also seen in never-smokers, younger participants (<55 years), and those who