Comparison between cytisine and Nicotine Replacement Therapy in smoking cessation among inpatient psychiatric patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Smoking is more common among people with mental disorders and is associated with adverse effects. Some compounds, including nicotine and cytisine, have been used in many individuals to increase success in smoking cessation. In this study, the effect of cytisine on the smoking status of patients hospitalized in the psychiatry department was investigated. METHOD: Forty-seven patients, hospitalized in the psychiatry ward, motivated to quit smoking, participated in this open-label randomized trial. Thirty patients used nicotine gums 2 mg (Nicolife®) for eight weeks, and the remaining took cytisine pills (Tabex®) according to the manufacturer's instructions for 25 days. All patients were followed up for six months. The primary outcome was smoking cessation, measured by the mood and physical symptoms scale (MPSS), the AUDIT alcohol consumption questions (AUDIT-C), confirmatory factor analyses, and reliability of the modified cigarette evaluation questionnaire at the end of the 1st week and at 1st, 2nd and 6th months after quit day. FINDINGS: Only two out of 30 patients (6.66%) in the group taking Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT) could quit smoking entirely (no cigarettes after six months). In contrast, three out of 17 patients (17.64%) managed to do so in the cytisine group. The number of cigarettes smoked by the patients in both groups decreased, but the reduction was significant in the cytisine group. CONCLUSION: Cytisine is an effective and suitable agent for smoking cessation in patients with psychological problems, with fewer adverse effects and more success rate compared to NRT.
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".