MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Genetic Influences on Smoking

2005· review· en· W2042787127 on OpenAlexaff
Nael Al Koudsi, Rachel F. Tyndale

Bibliographic record

VenueTherapeutic Drug Monitoring · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience of respiration and sleep
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputational biologyMedicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Smoking is a complex behavior influenced by environ-mental and genetic factors. A number of twin studies demonstrate genetic influences on multiple aspects of smoking including initiation, dependence, continuation, amount consumed, and cessation. It is likely that this genetic risk involves a complex interaction between multiple genes in different biologic pathways. These may include genes involved in the general aspect of dependence (eg, genes within the dopaminergic system) and those more specific to nicotine dependence (eg, genes encoding nicotinic acetylcholine receptors and nicotine-metabolizing enzymes). Genome-wide linkage analyses and gene association studies provide approaches for identifying these genes. This review provides a brief highlight of data from some of the candidate gene association studies and discusses some of the discrepancies found in the literature. In addition, the authors have reviewed some recent studies examining how genetic variations in drug-metabolizing enzymes and drug targets can influence the response to treatment with drugs such as bupropion and nicotine.These latter studies provide the potential for maximizing treatment efficacy by individualizing the type, dosage, and duration of the treatment based on an individual's genotype/phenotype. Significant advances have been made in understanding the genetic contribution to smoking behaviors. These and future studies will provide potential directions for novel prevention and treatment strategies.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.999
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.144
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.245 · 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.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations26
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTherapeutic Drug MonitoringSame topicNeuroscience of respiration and sleepFrench-language works237,207