Toward Precision Medicine for Smoking Cessation: Developing a Neuroimaging-Based Classification Algorithm to Identify Smokers at Higher Risk for Relapse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: By improving our understanding of the neurobiological mechanisms underlying addiction, neuroimaging research is helping to identify new targets for personalized treatment interventions. When trying to quit, smokers with larger electrophysiological responses to cigarette-related, compared with pleasant, stimuli ("C > P") are more likely to relapse than smokers with the opposite brain reactivity profile ("P > C"). AIM AND METHOD: The goal was to (1) build a classification algorithm to identify smokers characterized by P > C or C > P neuroaffective profiles and (2) validate the algorithm's classification outcomes in an independent data set where we assessed both smokers' electrophysiological responses at baseline and smoking abstinence during a quit attempt. We built the classification algorithm applying discriminant function analysis on the event-related potentials evoked by emotional images in 180 smokers. RESULTS: The predictive validity of the classifier showed promise in an independent data set that included new data from 177 smokers interested in quitting; the algorithm classified 111 smokers as P > C and 66 as C > P. The overall abstinence rate was low; 15 individuals (8.5% of the sample) achieved CO-verified 12-month abstinence. Although individuals classified as P > C were nearly 2.5 times more likely to be abstinent than smokers classified as C > P (12 vs. 3, or 11% vs. 4.5%), this result was nonsignificant, preliminary, and in need of confirmation in larger trials. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that psychophysiological techniques have the potential to advance our knowledge of the neurobiological underpinnings of nicotine addiction and improve clinical applications. However, larger sample sizes are necessary to reliably assess the predictive ability of our algorithm. IMPLICATIONS: We assessed the clinical relevance of a neuroimaging-based classification algorithm on an independent sample of smokers enrolled in a smoking cessation trial and found those with the tendency to attribute more relevance to rewards than cues were nearly 2.5 times more likely to be abstinent than smokers with the opposite brain reactivity profile (11% vs. 4.5%). Although this result was not statistically significant, it suggests our neuroimaging-based classification algorithm can potentially contribute to the development of new precision medicine interventions aimed at treating substance use disorders. Regardless, these findings are still preliminary and in need of confirmation in larger 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 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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".