Effects of nicotine compared to placebo gum on sensitivity to pain and mediating effects of peak alpha frequency
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Recent research has linked individual peak alpha frequency (PAF) to pain sensitivity, but whether PAF alterations can influence pain remains unclear. Our study investigated the effects of nicotine on pain sensitivity and whether pain changes are mediated by PAF changes. In a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled experiment, 62 healthy adults (18–44 years) received either 4 mg nicotine (n=29) or placebo gum (n=33). Resting state EEG and pain ratings during prolonged heat and pressure models were collected before and after nicotine intake. The nicotine group showed a small decrease in heat-pain ratings compared to placebo group when controlling confounders, and a small increase in PAF across the scalp from pre- to post-gum, both with and without confounder adjustment. These effects were most pronounced in the central-parietal and right-frontal electrodes. However, mediation analysis did not support the notion that PAF changes mediate nicotine’s effects on pain sensitivity. While a growing body of literature supports a link between PAF and both acute and chronic pain, further work is needed to understand the mechanisms of this link.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".