MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2098436801 · doi:10.1016/j.clpt.2004.10.011

Implications of CYP2A6 Genetic Variation for Smoking Behaviors and Nicotine Dependence*

2005· review· en· W2098436801 on OpenAlexaff
Viba Malaiyandi, Edward M. Sellers, Rachel F. Tyndale

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicNicotinic Acetylcholine Receptors Study
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCYP2A6NicotineAddictionContext (archaeology)Nicotine dependenceCotinineSmoking cessationCigarette smokeAbstinencePharmacologyMedicinePsychologyPsychiatryBiologyCytochrome P450Internal medicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nicotine is the primary addictive compound in tobacco smoke. In this review we summarize nicotine dependence and the genetics of smoking in brief before focusing on cytochrome P450 (CYP) 2A6. In humans nicotine is mainly inactivated to cotinine and CYP2A6 mediates approximately 90% of this conversion. Some, but not all, studies suggest that genetic variation in CYP2A6 may play a role in smoking. We review some of the recent findings on the influence of CYP2A6 genetic polymorphisms on nicotine kinetics, smoking behaviors, and how the gene appears to exert differential effects during various stages of smoking (eg, initiation, conversion to dependence, amount smoked during dependence, and quitting). These new findings will be put in the context of the discrepancies found in the literature. Implications of these recent findings on current and novel treatment approaches for smoking cessation and tobacco-related lung cancer will also be discussed.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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 head0.118
GPT teacher head0.484
Teacher spread0.366 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations265
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Pharmacology & TherapeuticsSame topicNicotinic Acetylcholine Receptors StudyFrench-language works237,207