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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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 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".