Effects of Nicotine Gum Administration on Vision (ENIGMA-Vis): Study Protocol of a Double-Blind, Randomized, and Controlled Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies reported that tobacco addiction was related to visual impairments, but one unresolved issue is whether the impairments are related to the many compounds existing in the cigarettes or to the effects of nicotine. On the other hand, nicotine gum can be used as replacement therapy or as a neuroprotective agent for some diseases. The main purpose of this controlled trial is to investigate the effects of nicotine gum on vision. The ENIGMA-Vis trial aims to compare two dosages of nicotine gum (2-mg and 4-mg) and a placebo gum in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of 100 participants to be allocated into a single group assignment of repeated measures (two studies; N= 50 for each one). Eligibility criteria are healthy nonsmokers not diagnosed with substance abuse and without an acute or chronic medical condition. Intervention will last three sessions for each participant with a window frame of one week per session. Study outcomes are (1) short-term effects of nicotine gum on contrast sensitivity; (2) short-term effects of nicotine gum on chromatic contrast discrimination; (3) whether demographics, body mass index, or serum cotinine predicts response of visual processing. This study addresses an important gap in the effects of nicotine on vision. One of the main takeaways of this study is to understand how the effects of nicotine on contrast sensitivity and chromatic contrast discrimination. This information will provide a further understanding of how nicotine interacts with early visual processes and help determine how the different components present during smoking can affect vision. Trial Registration number: RBR-46tjy3
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".