Intermittent Nicotine Access is as Effective as Continuous Access in Promoting Nicotine Seeking and Taking in Rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Nicotine is a principal psychoactive agent in tobacco, contributing to tobacco’s addictive potential. Preclinical studies on the effects of voluntary nicotine intake typically use self-administration procedures that provide continuous nicotine access during each self-administration session. However, many smokers consume cigarettes intermittently rather than continuously throughout each day. For drugs including cocaine and opioids, research in laboratory rats shows that intermittent intake can be more effective than continuous intake in producing patterns of drug use relevant to addiction. We asked, therefore, how intermittent versus continuous nicotine self-administration influences nicotine seeking and taking behaviours. Female and male rats had continuous (i.e., Long Access; LgA, 6 h/day) or intermittent (IntA; 12 min ON, 60 min OFF, for 6 h/day) access to intravenous nicotine (15 µg/kg/infusion), for 12 daily sessions. We then assessed intake, responding for nicotine under a progressive ratio schedule of drug reinforcement and cue- and nicotine-induced reinstatement of drug seeking. We also estimated nicotine pharmacokinetic parameters during LgA and IntA self-administration. Overall, LgA rats took twice more nicotine than did IntA rats, yielding more sustained increases in estimated brain concentrations of the drug. However, the two groups showed similar motivation to seek and take nicotine, as measured using reinstatement and progressive ratio procedures, respectively. Thus, intermittent nicotine use is just as effective as continuous use in producing addiction-relevant behaviours, despite significantly less nicotine exposure. This has implications for modeling nicotine self-administration patterns in human smokers and resulting effects on brain and behaviour.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".