Effects of Oxytocin Administration on Cue‐Induced Craving in Co‐occurring Alcohol Use Disorder and PTSD: A Within‐Participant Randomized Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Individuals with alcohol use disorder (AUD) are much more likely to meet criteria for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) than the general population. Compared to AUD alone, those with comorbid AUD-PTSD experience worse outcomes. Prior literature suggests that oxytocin, a hypothalamic neuropeptide, may be effective in the treatment of both AUD and PTSD when administered intranasally, although specific mechanisms remain elusive. METHODS: Forty-seven male patients with comorbid AUD-PTSD were administered intranasal oxytocin in a randomized, double-blind, dose-ranging (20 IU, 40 IU, and matched placebo), within-participant design with study visits at least 1 week apart. A cue-induced craving paradigm was conducted using each participant's preferred alcoholic beverage versus a neutral water cue. Self-reported alcohol craving and heart rate (HR) were recorded and analyzed using linear mixed-effect models. RESULTS: While alcohol cues significantly induced self-reported craving and increased HR compared to neutral water cues, neither dosage of oxytocin compared to placebo reduced self-reported cue-induced alcohol craving nor cue-induced changes in HR in patients with PTSD-AUD. CONCLUSIONS: These preliminary findings suggest that oxytocin does not affect cue-induced craving. Our results contribute to an ever-growing field of research investigating the effects of intranasal oxytocin on the symptoms of substance use disorders and will help further refine methodology and streamline future inquiries in this area.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".