The impact of nicotine lozenges and stimulus expectancies on cigarette craving
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reduced craving associated with nicotine replacement therapy use is frequently attributed to the effects of nicotine pharmacology, however non-pharmacological factors may also play a role. This study examined the impact of nicotine pharmacology and non-pharmacological components of an acute nicotine lozenge (4 mg) on cigarette craving, mood and heart rate in 70 daily smokers (36 male). Smoking-related stimuli were used to assess cue-induced craving. Participants were randomly assigned to one of four conditions in a balanced placebo design where half the participants were provided deceptive information regarding the nicotine content of a lozenge. Subjective ratings of craving and mood were collected and heart rate was assessed before and after neutral and smoking cues. Nicotine expectancy reduced withdrawal-related craving (p = 0.006) regardless of actual nicotine administration while combined nicotine expectancy and administration reduced intentions to smoke (p = 0.046) relative to each of the other conditions. Exposure to smoking-related stimuli increased cigarette craving (p ≤ 0.001) and negative affect (p ≤ 0.001) regardless of expectancy or pharmacology. Following the smoking cue, women reported a greater increase in withdrawal-related craving than men (p = 0.027). Findings suggest that both pharmacological and non-pharmacological components of nicotine lozenge administration contribute to its acute effects on craving, yet neither appears effective in preventing craving triggered by exposure to environmental smoking stimuli.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".