Psychophysical and Vasomotor Responses of the Oral Tissues: A Nicotine Dose-Response and Menthol Interaction Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This study implemented an intra-oral test-platform to assess the sensory, psychophysical, and vasomotor responses to nicotine and menthol, alone or in combination. METHODS: Two double-blinded, placebo-controlled, randomized, cross-over studies, including healthy nonsmoking participants were performed. Study I: A dose-response relationship (N = 20) between 0, 2, and 4 mg nicotine gum. Study II: An interaction response (N = 22) to 30 mg menthol and 4 mg nicotine alone or in combination. Heart rate, blood pressure, tactile and thermosensory thresholds, intra-oral blood flow and temperature, pain/irritation intensities/locations, McGill Pain Questionnaire, and taste experience were assessed before, during or after the completion of a standardized chewing regime. RESULTS: A dose-response elevation in heart rate was attenuated when nicotine was combined with menthol. Blood flow, temperature, and warm-detection thresholds, as assessed on the tongue, similarly increased for all gums. Pain intensity and taste experiences were similar between nicotine doses. Nicotine attenuated the sweet, cooling, and freshening sensation of menthol. Within the first 4 minutes, menthol reduced the intensity but not the area of nicotine-induced pain and irritation. The 4-mg nicotine dose led to a continued increase in the intensity and area of irritation in the throat post-chewing. Moreover, one-half of participants responded to menthol as an irritant, and these individuals demonstrated larger areas of nicotine-induced irritation in the throat post-chewing. CONCLUSIONS: The intra-oral test platform provides a basis to optimize the assessment of nicotine-related taste and sensory experiences and can be used in future studies for profiling nicotine gum.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".