Behavioral and Pharmacokinetic Assessment of Nicotine e-Cigarette Inhalation in Female Rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Nicotine and tobacco use remain high both globally and in the United States, contributing to large health care expenditures. With a rise in e-cigarette use, it is important to have clinically relevant models of inhaled nicotine exposure. AIMS AND METHODS: This study aims to extend prior preclinical nicotine inhalation animal data to females and provide both behavior and serum pharmacokinetics. We tested two inhalation doses of nicotine (24 mg/mL and 59 mg/ mL) and compared these to injected doses (0.4 mg/kg and 1 mg/kg). In addition, we assessed locomotor behavior after the same doses. Blood was collected at 10- and 120-minutes post-administration. We assessed nicotine and cotinine serum concentrations by LC-MS/MS. RESULTS: Showed that while nicotine serum concentrations for the respective high and low-dose administrations were similar between both routes of administration, the route had differential effects on locomotor behavior. Inhaled nicotine showed a dose-dependent decrease in locomotor activity while injected doses showed the opposite trend. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that the route of administration is an important factor when establishing preclinical models of nicotine exposures. Given that the overall use of e-cigarettes in vulnerable populations is on the rise, our study provides important behavioral and pharmacokinetic information to advance our currently limited understanding of the effects of nicotine vapor exposure. IMPLICATIONS: This study highlights behavioral differences between different routes of administration of similar doses of nicotine. Using a low and high dose of nicotine, we found that nicotine serum concentrations were similar between the different routes of administration. Our results indicate that different routes of administration have opposing effects on locomotor activity. These findings provide important implications for future behavioral models.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".