MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A review of neurobiological vulnerability factors and treatment implications for comorbid tobacco dependence in schizophrenia

2011· review· en· W2154200052 on OpenAlexaff
Victoria C. Wing, Caroline Wass, Debra W. Soh, Tony P. George

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicNicotinic Acetylcholine Receptors Study
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)AddictionNicotineVulnerability (computing)ComorbidityNicotine dependencePsychiatryPsychologyNicotine AddictionClinical psychologyPerspective (graphical)Medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is converging evidence that certain subpopulations of smokers, such as smokers with a serious mental illness like schizophrenia (SCZ), are more likely to become addicted to tobacco and are less likely to quit smoking. This review focuses on the unique risk factors that may increase vulnerability to the initiation and maintenance of nicotine addiction in persons with schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders and also reviews the latest approaches to treating nicotine addiction and schizophrenia based on our neurobiological understanding of central nicotinic receptor systems and related neurotransmitters. In addition, suggestions for future lines of research to better understand reasons for the comorbidity of nicotine addiction in schizophrenia are 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)0.000
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.231
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.195 · 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

Citations99
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of the New York Academy of SciencesSame topicNicotinic Acetylcholine Receptors StudyFrench-language works237,207