The Value of Biosamples in Smoking Cessation Trials: A Review of Genetic, Metabolomic, and Epigenetic Findings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Human genetic research has succeeded in definitively identifying multiple genetic variants associated with risk for nicotine dependence and heavy smoking. To build on these advances, and to aid in reducing the prevalence of smoking and its consequent health harms, the next frontier is to identify genetic predictors of successful smoking cessation and also of the efficacy of smoking cessation treatments ("pharmacogenomics"). More broadly, additional biomarkers that can be quantified from biosamples also promise to aid "Precision Medicine" and the personalization of treatment, both pharmacological and behavioral. Aims and Methods: To motivate ongoing and future efforts, here we review several compelling genetic and biomarker findings related to smoking cessation and treatment. Results: These Key results involve genetic variants in the nicotinic receptor subunit gene CHRNA5, variants in the nicotine metabolism gene CYP2A6, and the nicotine metabolite ratio. We also summarize reports of epigenetic changes related to smoking behavior. Conclusions: The results to date demonstrate the value and utility of data generated from biosamples in clinical treatment trial settings. This article cross-references a companion paper in this issue that provides practical guidance on how to incorporate biosample collection into a planned clinical trial and discusses avenues for harmonizing data and fostering consortium-based, collaborative research on the pharmacogenomics of smoking cessation. Implications: Evidence is emerging that certain genotypes and biomarkers are associated with smoking cessation success and efficacy of smoking cessation treatments. We review key findings that open potential avenues for personalizing smoking cessation treatment according to an individual's genetic or metabolic profile. These results provide important incentive for smoking cessation researchers to collect biosamples and perform genotyping in research studies and clinical trials.
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 | 0.071 | 0.124 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".