Does acute tobacco smoking prevent cue-induced craving?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Smoking cessation aids appear to be limited in their ability to prevent craving triggered by exposure to smoking-associated stimuli; however, the extent to which cue-induced cravings persist following denicotinized or nicotine-containing tobacco smoking is not known. METHODS: Thirty (17 male) ⩾12-hour abstinent dependent smokers completed two sessions during which they smoked a nicotine-containing or denicotinized cigarette. Instructions regarding the nicotine content of the cigarette varied across sessions, and all participants were exposed to a neutral cue followed by a smoking cue after cigarette consumption. Craving was assessed before and after cigarette consumption and cue exposure. RESULTS: Reduced intentions to smoke were associated with both nicotine expectancy (p<0.05) and nicotine administration (p<0.01), while reduced withdrawal-related craving was uniquely associated with nicotine administration (p<0.05). Smoking-associated stimuli increased craving regardless of nicotine expectancy or administration (p-values<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: While both nicotine pharmacology and expectancy appear to contribute to craving reduction associated with acute tobacco smoking, neither smoking-related nicotine administration nor expectation prevents increases in craving following exposure to smoking-associated stimuli. These findings suggest that cue-induced craving may be resistant to various pharmacological and psychological interventions.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".