MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2058373105 · doi:10.1080/14622200500259887

A randomized, open‐label pilot comparison of gabapentin and bupropion SR for smoking cessation

2005· article· en· W2058373105 on OpenAlexafffund
William D. White, David Crockford, Scott B. Patten, Nady el‐Guebaly

Bibliographic record

VenueNicotine & Tobacco Research · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSmoking Behavior and Cessation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersPfizer CanadaPfizer
KeywordsBupropionGabapentinSmoking cessationMedicineRandomized controlled trialNicotineAnesthesiaInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This 6-week, randomized, open-label pilot study estimated the treatment effect size of gabapentin (n = 17) compared with bupropion SR (n = 19) for smoking cessation, thereby allowing sample size calculations for a definitive comparison study. The primary outcome measure was smoking cessation. Secondary outcome measures included smoking reduction and withdrawal severity. Gabapentin was less efficacious than bupropion for smoking cessation but was associated with fewer dropouts from adverse effects. Withdrawal severity was less with bupropion. Bupropion remains the first-line non-nicotine pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation. Further study is required to determine if gabapentin has any useful role in smoking cessation. Based on our primary outcome measure, 79 subjects would be required in each treatment group of a two-armed study to achieve 90% power for detecting a difference in efficacy between gabapentin and bupropion.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.275
GPT teacher head0.490
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
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

Citations26
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNicotine & Tobacco ResearchSame topicSmoking Behavior and CessationFrench-language works237,207