Nicotine Replacement Combined with a Novel Compound (ProBAN) for Smoking Cessation: A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Smoking cessation rates with available pharmacological therapies remain suboptimal. Anecdotal observations with a combination of sublingual pralidoxime and ipratropium (ProBAN) suggested that these agents in combination with nicotine gum improved quit rates. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether ProBAN together with nicotine replacement improves quit rates compared with nicotine replacement alone. DESIGN: A 12-week, prospective, double-blind, randomized, placebo controlled pilot study. SETTING: University-affiliated outpatient clinic. POPULATION STUDIED: Healthy adult smokers were recruited via advertisements. Of 107 subjects seen at the screening visit, 27 were excluded because of comorbid illness or concomitant medication use. INTERVENTIONS: Of 80 eligible subjects, 40 were randomly assigned to receive treatment with ProBAN sub- lingual tablets and nicotine gum (treatment group), and 40 to receive placebo tablets and nicotine gum (control group) for 12 weeks. The primary outcome was complete continuous abstinence of smoking from one through 12 weeks after the quit date. MAIN RESULTS: There were no adverse effects in the treatment group. At one week after the quit date, 35% of ProBAN-treated subjects had quit compared with 18% of control subjects (odds ratio [OR] 2.5, 95% CI 0.9 to 7.2). Corresponding quit rates at four weeks were 28% and 15% (OR 2.1, 95% CI 0.7 to 6.5), at eight weeks were 25% and 13% (OR 2.3, 95% CI 0.7 to 7.6), and at 12 weeks were 23% and 13% (OR 2.0, 95% CI 0.6 to 6.7), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study indicated that ProBAN combined with nicotine replacement doubled the continuous sustained quit rate compared with nicotine replacement alone, with no adverse effects. Although not statistically significant due to the size of the study, this result suggests that it may be an effective therapy for smoking cessation, and larger studies are warranted.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".