Mode of Action: Disruption of Brain Cell Replication, Second Messenger, and Neurotransmitter Systems During Development Leading to Cognitive Dysfunction—Developmental Neurotoxicity of Nicotine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Developmental exposure to nicotine in rats results in neurobehavioral effects such as reduced locomotor and cognitive function. Key events in the animal mode of action (MOA) include binding to the nicotinic cholinergic receptor during prenatal and/or early postnatal development. This leads to premature onset of cell differentiation at the expense of cell replication, which leads to brain cell death or structural alterations in regional brain areas. Other events include an initial increase followed by a decrease in adenyl cyclase activity, as well as effects on the noradrenergic, dopaminergic, and serotonergic neurotransmitter systems. Because the nicotine receptor is also present in the developing human brain and the underlying biology for DNA synthesis and cell signaling is comparable, this MOA is likely to be relevant for humans. Although the effects of nicotine exposure in developing humans is not well documented, nicotine exposure as a result of cigarette smoking during pregnancy is associated with several physiological and behavioral outcomes that are reminiscent of the effects of nicotine alone in animal models. As data become available with the advent of the use of the nicotine patch in pregnant humans, the question as to the relative importance of smoking per se versus nicotine alone may be determined.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".