Examination of the effects of varenicline, bupropion, lorcaserin, or naltrexone on responding for conditioned reinforcement in nicotine-exposed rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Smoking tobacco remains one of the leading causes of preventable deaths in North America. Nicotine reinforces smoking behavior, in part, by enhancing the reinforcing properties of reward-related stimuli, or conditioned stimuli (CSs), associated with tobacco intake. To investigate how pharmaceutical interventions may affect this property of nicotine, we examined the effect of four US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved drugs on the ability of nicotine to enhance operant responding for a CS as a conditioned reinforcer. Thirsty rats were exposed to 13 Pavlovian sessions where a CS was paired with water delivery. Nicotine (0.4 mg/kg) injections were administered before each Pavlovian session. Then, in separate groups of rats, the effects of varenicline (1 mg/kg), bupropion (10 and 30 mg/kg), lorcaserin (0.6 mg/kg), and naltrexone (2 mg/kg), and their interaction with nicotine on responding for conditioned reinforcement were examined. Varenicline and lorcaserin each reduced nicotine-enhanced responding for conditioned reinforcement, whereas naltrexone had a modest effect of reducing response enhancements by nicotine. In contrast, bupropion enhanced the effect of nicotine on this measure. The results of these studies may inform how pharmaceutical interventions can affect smoking cessation attempts and relapse through diverse mechanisms, either substituting for, or interacting with, the reinforcement-enhancing properties of nicotine.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".