The relative impact of acute nicotine and tobacco administration on craving, withdrawal, and cigarette self-administration in dependent and nondependent smokers.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Negative reinforcement mechanisms, wherein individuals smoke at regular intervals to ameliorate craving and withdrawal, are integral to persistent smoking. This is consistent with the behavior of dependent smokers but does not fully account for the behavior of intermittent smokers, who do not smoke enough to maintain steady nicotine levels. This study examined the independent and combined impacts of nicotine and tobacco consumption on cigarette craving, withdrawal, and subsequent smoking behavior in 18 nondependent light and intermittent smokers (LITS) and 23 daily, dependent smokers (DDS). Participants administered conventional nicotine-containing cigarettes (NC; 18.9 mg nicotine; 1.41 mg deliverable), reduced nicotine content cigarettes (RNC; 0.4 mg nicotine, 0.05 mg deliverable), nicotine inhalers (NI; 10 mg nicotine, 4 mg deliverable), or nicotine-free inhalers (NFI) across 4 sessions following overnight abstinence. Participants rated craving and withdrawal before and after product administration, then completed a cigarette self-administration task. For cigarette self-administration, neither smoking status nor product affected latency to initiate smoking; however, LITS were more likely to abstain from smoking and administered fewer puffs than DDS. Across participants, pharmacologically active products (NC, RNC, NI) were associated with fewer cigarette puffs than the NFI. For subjective measures, only cigarettes (NC, RNC) reduced craving in both LITS and DDS. NC, RNC, and NI reduced withdrawal in DDS, while withdrawal remained at floor levels across time points among LITS. While subjective ratings and smoking behavior were largely comparable across LITS and DDS, differing patterns of withdrawal symptoms suggest that dependent smoking is motivated by negative reinforcement while nondependent smoking is not. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).
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) | 0.000 | 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".