The DOI matches its Crossref record; 159 of the 166 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 60 of the 142 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain.
Open accessAbstract
Adolescence is a time of major plasticity of brain systems that regulate motivated behavior and cognition, and is also the age of peak onset of nicotine use. Although there has been a decline in teen use of cigarettes in recent years, there has been a huge increase in nicotine vaping. It is therefore critically important to understand the impact of nicotine on this critical phase of brain development. Animal studies have shown that nicotine has unique effects on adolescent brain. The goal of this review is therefore to systematically evaluate age- and sex-differences in the effects of nicotine on brain and behavior. Both acute and chronic effects of nicotine on brain biochemistry and behavior, particularly drug reward, aversion, cognition and emotion, are evaluated. Gaps in our current knowledge that need to be addressed are also highlighted. This review compares and integrates human and animals findings. Although there can be no experimental studies in humans to confirm similar behavioral effects of teen nicotine exposure, an emerging observational literature suggests similarities across species. Given the substantial evidence for long-term negative impact of adolescent nicotine exposure on brain and behavior, further longitudinal assessment of health outcomes in teen and young adult e-cigarette users is warranted.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
31 No full text of the sources · 19 Partly supported · 18 Supported · 13 Own interpretation · 11 Not checked yet · 7 Supported so far · 6 Sources not found · 6 No basis given · 2 Own result · 1 Couldn’t confirm · accuracy not yet measured
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Marketing of e-cigarettes to adolescents has been very effective (Marynak et al., 2018)”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > The teen vaping crisis
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Marynak et al., 2018 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion reports that four in five U.S. youths were exposed to e-cigarette advertising in 2016 and notes an association between advertising exposure and e-cigarette use. It does not establish that marketing caused adolescents to use e-cigarettes or otherwise measure how effective the marketing was. (LLM, conf=0.84)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“Of these, nearly 1 million are vaping daily.”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > The teen vaping crisis
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites Cullen et al., 2019 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The table in the Discussion estimates 3.64 million current e-cigarette users among middle and high school students, but the paper defines current use as use on at least one day in the preceding 30 days. A search for daily or every-day vaping found no estimate of how many students vape daily, so the nearly 1 million figure cannot be verified from our copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Could not verify
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Serotonin systems are also uniquely sensitive to nicotine during adolescence (Slotkin & Seidler, 2009; Bang & Commons, 2011; Dao et al., 2011).”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > Acute nicotine effects in adolescents > Acute neurochemical effects on monoamine systems.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Slotkin & Seidler, 2009 source
- Supportedcites Bang & Commons, 2011 source
The Conclusions state that the study provides evidence of increased sensitivity of the 5-HT system to nicotine in adolescents. The Discussion describes broader nicotine-induced activation of serotonin neurons in adolescent rats than in adults. (LLM, conf=0.92)
- Supportedcites Dao et al., 2011 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
In “Adolescent Maturation of the Mesocorticolimbic System,” the authors report age-specific changes in serotonin markers after nicotine exposure in rats and conclude that early adolescent exposure alters serotonin function in the limbic circuit. The Figure 6 description also reports changes in serotonin transporter density and serotonin-related measures following adolescent nicotine pretreatment. No page numbers are provided in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.90)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“This may reflect late maturation of the medial habenula to lateral dorsal tegmental pathway that underlies nicotine aversion (Wolfman et al., 2018).”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > Acute nicotine effects in adolescents > Short-term behavioral effects.
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Wolfman et al., 2018 source
The Abstract (page not provided) identifies the medial habenula–interpeduncular nucleus–laterodorsal tegmentum circuit and reports that inhibiting the IPN–LDTg connection blocks nicotine conditioned place aversion. The sentence uses Wolfman et al. to identify the aversion pathway; late maturation is the citing authors’ hedged explanation. (LLM, conf=0.88)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Nicotine-induced neuronal activation, as measured by immediate early gene expression, is also enhanced during adolescence in several limbic regions, including nucleus accumbens shell, basolateral amygdala, VTA and medial prefrontal cortex (Schochet et al., 2005; Shram et al., 2007; Dao et al., 2011).”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > Acute nicotine effects in adolescents > Acute neurochemical effects on monoamine systems.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Schochet et al., 2005 source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Shram et al., 2007 source
- Partly supportedcites Dao et al., 2011 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The ‘Acute and Subchronic Nicotine Treatment Induces Age-dependent Neural Activation’ section reports greater nicotine-induced c-fos expression in adolescent rats’ nucleus accumbens shell and basolateral amygdala. It reports no significant acute nicotine effect in the prefrontal cortex, and the supplied passages do not establish comparable immediate-early-gene activation in the VTA. Those regions may be covered by the sentence’s other citations, but Dao et al. supports only part of the list. (LLM, conf=0.90)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Furthermore, electrophysiological studies have shown that VTA dopamine neurons are more sensitive to nicotine-induced synaptic plasticity in adolescents than adults (Placzek et al., 2009).”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > Acute nicotine effects in adolescents > Acute neurochemical effects on monoamine systems.
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Placzek et al., 2009 source
In §3.2, Studies in animal models (page unavailable), the paper reports a significantly greater nicotine-induced increase in the AMPAR/NMDAR ratio in young mice than in adult mice at 0.4 mg/kg. It interprets this electrophysiological measure as evidence that the developing brain may be more sensitive to nicotine-induced long-term potentiation in VTA dopamine neurons. (LLM, conf=0.92)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Radioligand binding to α4β2* nAChRs in the VTA and in the striatum and prefrontal cortex, which are enriched in dopamine terminals, is also higher in adolescents than adults (Doura et al., 2008).”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > Acute nicotine effects in adolescents
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Doura et al., 2008 source
Table 2 (shown under §4.3, Autoradiography; page unavailable) reports significantly higher α4β2* radioligand binding in saline-treated periadolescent rats than adults in the ventral tegmental area, rostral and caudal striatum, and frontal cortex. The Results (§2) also report higher binding in periadolescents across the regions studied. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Some of the increased drug intake in adolescents in intravenous self-administration tests may reflect elevated motor activity and non-specific increases in responding (Gellner et al., 2016).”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > Acute nicotine effects in adolescents > Short-term behavioral effects.
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Gellner et al., 2016 source
The Discussion (§4.2) says nicotine and cigarette smoke extract increased non-reinforced responding in adolescent rats, describes this as a measure of activity, and states that the hyperactivity resulted in substantially higher drug intake. The Results (§3) also report increased non-reinforced responding in adolescents. The citing sentence appropriately hedges this finding with “may reflect.” (LLM, conf=0.94)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Acute nicotine is also less effective in adolescents than adults at enhancing the context pre-exposure facilitation effect, a hippocampal-dependent learning paradigm (Kutlu et al., 2016).”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > Acute nicotine effects in adolescents > Short-term behavioral effects.
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Kutlu et al., 2016 source
The Introduction identifies context pre-exposure facilitation effect (CPFE) as a hippocampus-dependent learning paradigm. The Discussion reports that lower acute nicotine doses did not enhance CPFE when contextual pre-exposure occurred during adolescence, and the Results describe adolescent mice as less sensitive than adults to nicotine’s enhancing effects. (LLM, conf=0.93)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Brief treatment with low-dose nicotine during early adolescence (postnatal days (P) 28–31) but not adulthood, also increases presynaptic markers of serotonin function in the forebrain (Dao et al., 2011).”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > Acute nicotine effects in adolescents > Acute neurochemical effects on monoamine systems.
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Dao et al., 2011 source
The 4-Day Pretreatment section describes low-dose nicotine treatment during early adolescence (P28–31) and adulthood. The ‘Adolescent Nicotine Pretreatment Alters Monoamines in Mesolimbic Reward Circuitry’ results report increased serotonin transporter binding—a presynaptic serotonin marker—in adolescent, but not adult, rats, specifically in the prefrontal cortex and basolateral amygdala. (LLM, conf=0.93)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“This is consistent with a substantial clinical and pre-clinical literature that indicates that female adults are more sensitive to stressors, including nicotine, than males (Torres & O’Dell, 2016).”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > Acute nicotine effects in adolescents > Short-term behavioral effects.
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Torres & O’Dell, 2016 source
Section 3 (page unavailable) says clinical and preclinical evidence suggests females have a greater predisposition to stress responses than males. Section 6 (page unavailable) reports greater effects of nicotine on stress systems in female than male rodents, and Section 8 specifies greater anxiolytic effects of nicotine in adult female than adult male rodents. (LLM, conf=0.88)
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“When adult males were pretreated with the kappa opioid receptor antagonist, norbinaltorphimine, to block this they self-administered the drug combination at the same high rate as adolescents (Lárraga et al., 2017).”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > Acute nicotine effects in adolescents > Short-term behavioral effects.
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Lárraga et al., 2017 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Figure 4 caption (page not available in our copy) reports that norBNI significantly increased ethanol-plus-nicotine reinforced responses in adult male rats; the discussion says it did not significantly affect adolescent males. Neither passage establishes that pretreated adults self-administered the combination at the same rate as adolescents, so that comparison is unsupported. (LLM, conf=0.82)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Our animal studies have also shown a unique interaction of nicotine and alcohol in adolescent male rats (Lárraga et al., 2017).”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > Acute nicotine effects in adolescents > Short-term behavioral effects.
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Lárraga et al., 2017 source
The Discussion reports that concurrent nicotine self-administration enhanced alcohol reinforcement and intake in adolescent male rats, but not in adult males or females of either age. The Conclusions describe these as age- and sex-dependent nicotine–alcohol interactions, supporting the cited characterization of a unique interaction. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Nicotine treatment during early adolescence also increases subsequent cocaine-induced locomotor sensitization”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > Chronic effects of adolescent nicotine treatment > Drug reward.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Kelley & Rowan, 2004 source
- Supportedcites McQuown et al., 2009 source
The Discussion reports that adolescent control rats did not show cocaine-induced locomotor sensitization, but brief, low-dose nicotine pretreatment induced it. The Abstract Results likewise report development and expression of sensitization after adolescent nicotine pretreatment. (LLM, conf=0.94)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Alajaji et al., 2016 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Mechanistic studies showed that the decreased response to the drug combination in adults reflected the late maturation of an inhibitory kappa opioid receptor modulation.”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > Acute nicotine effects in adolescents > Short-term behavioral effects.
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Lárraga et al., 2017 source
The section ‘EtOH and Nic Age-and Sex-Dependently Interact with Kappa-Opioid Receptor Function’ attributes the age difference in male rats’ response to the alcohol–nicotine combination to KOR activation: blocking KOR increased reinforcement in adult males but not adolescent males. The ‘Age Differences in KOR Function’ section likewise reports inhibitory KOR effects in adults but not adolescents. The paper presents the underlying receptor mechanism as a suggestion, rather than establishing it definitively. (LLM, conf=0.87)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Some clinical studies of cessation of tobacco use in teenagers indicate that they may be especially sensitive to withdrawal, exhibiting symptoms of dependence soon after smoking initiation and before the establishment of daily smoking habits (DiFranza et al., 2007; Dierker & Mermelstein, 2010; Zhan et al., 2012).”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > Chronic effects of adolescent nicotine treatment > Withdrawal syndrome.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites DiFranza et al., 2007 source
- Partly supportedcites Dierker & Mermelstein, 2010 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The introductory passage labeled Abstract > Conclusions says that some adolescents experience nicotine-dependence symptoms soon after initiation, before daily smoking. The Discussion also reports withdrawal symptoms among novice smokers. This paper is a prospective study of smoking behavior, not a clinical cessation study, and it does not establish that teenagers are especially sensitive to withdrawal. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Partly supportedcites Zhan et al., 2012 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The results (p. 4) report dependence symptoms, including smoking to relieve restlessness and irritability, before daily smoking in some adolescents. The paper’s summary also says symptoms can develop soon after initiation. However, this is a prospective study of smoking and dependence, not a clinical cessation study, and it does not establish that teenagers are especially sensitive to withdrawal relative to another group. (LLM, conf=0.86)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Animals treated with nicotine during early adolescence, but not late adolescence or adulthood, have been found to have enhanced rewarding effects of cocaine, methamphetamine and morphine, as measured by conditioned place preference later in adulthood”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > Chronic effects of adolescent nicotine treatment > Drug reward.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites McMillen et al., 2005 source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Alajaji et al., 2016 source
- Partly supportedcites Kota et al., 2018 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results (sections 3.1–3.2; page unavailable) show that early-adolescent nicotine exposure enhanced morphine conditioned place preference in adulthood, whereas late-adolescent or adult exposure did not. The Introduction and Discussion report enhanced adult responses to cocaine and methamphetamine after adolescent nicotine exposure, but do not establish that the same age comparison and conditioned-place-preference measure apply to those drugs. (LLM, conf=0.86)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“teen e-cigarette use is associated with greater risk for subsequent initiation and continuation of cigarette smoking”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > Chronic effects of adolescent nicotine treatment > Drug reward.
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Soneji et al, 2017 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Abstract Results and Conclusions report an association between e-cigarette use and later cigarette-smoking initiation and past-30-day cigarette smoking. But the Methods (Statistical Analysis) specify that the later-smoking analysis involved people who were not current cigarette smokers at baseline; it does not establish that e-cigarette use was associated with continuing to smoke cigarettes among existing smokers. (LLM, conf=0.87)
- Supportedcites Kinnunen et al., 2019 source
The Introduction (page not provided) reports a longitudinal association between adolescent e-cigarette use and cigarette-smoking initiation among never-smokers. It also reports an association with progression to established cigarette smoking among adolescent cigarette experimenters, supporting the claim about continuation. (LLM, conf=0.90)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“self-administration of nicotine or nicotine + ethanol during adolescence leads to increased oral consumption of ethanol in young adult males”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > Chronic effects of adolescent nicotine treatment > Drug reward.
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Lárraga et al., 2017 source
The Results section, “Nicotine Self-administration during Adolescence Increases Subsequent EtOH Drinking in Adulthood,” reports that male rats that self-administered nicotine alone or with ethanol as adolescents subsequently drank more oral ethanol than saline controls. Figure 6 specifies that the drinking test took place after those rats reached adulthood. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Nicotine treatment during adolescence, but not adulthood, increases anxiety in later life”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > Chronic effects of adolescent nicotine treatment > Emotional regulation.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Slawecki et al., 2003 source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Smith et al., 2006 source
- Supportedcites Iñiguez et al., 2009 source
The Abstract reports that nicotine exposure during adolescence, but not adulthood, enhanced sensitivity to anxiety-eliciting situations later in life. The Discussion identifies the subjects as rats and describes anxiety-like behavior in the elevated plus-maze after adolescent exposure, with no corresponding difference after adult exposure. (LLM, conf=0.92)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“nicotine pretreatment of adolescents, but not adults, increases the subsequent reinforcing effects of cocaine”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > Chronic effects of adolescent nicotine treatment > Drug reward.
What the sources say
- Supportedcites McQuown et al., 2007 source
The Discussion states that four days of low-dose nicotine exposure during early adolescence, but not adulthood, increased subsequent initial acquisition of cocaine self-administration. The Results (section 3.1) report greater early cocaine-reinforced responding in nicotine-pretreated adolescent rats. The claim is supported in the context of this rat experiment. (LLM, conf=0.93)
- Supportedcites Dao et al., 2011 source
The Results section, “Nicotine Pretreatment Enhances Adolescent Acquisition of Cocaine Self-administration” (page not provided), reports increased cocaine-reinforced responding after nicotine pretreatment in early-adolescent rats, but no significant effect in adults. The paper specifies that the effect was limited to early adolescence, not later adolescence. (LLM, conf=0.94)
- Supportedcites Reed & Izenwasser, 2017 source
The Discussion (section 3.2) states that rats exposed to nicotine during adolescence showed elevated cocaine reinforcement when tested as adults, while rats exposed to nicotine as adults did not. The claim is supported for the rats studied. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“we have further examined the mechanism by which adolescent nicotine increases cocaine self-administration, and have demonstrated a critical role for microglia”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > Chronic effects of adolescent nicotine treatment > Drug reward.
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Linker et al., 2020 source
The Discussion states that nicotine exposure in adolescent rats increases cocaine reinforcement and identifies microglia as essential regulators of the nicotine-induced increase in cocaine seeking. This supports the citing sentence’s claim about a critical role for microglia. (LLM, conf=0.94)
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The long-lasting enhancement of cocaine intake can be blocked by co-administration of a serotonin 5HT1A or dopamine D2 receptor antagonist during nicotine pretreatment”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > Chronic effects of adolescent nicotine treatment > Drug reward.
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Dao et al., 2011 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The section on 5-HT1A receptors reports that an antagonist co-administered during adolescent nicotine pretreatment blocked enhanced cocaine self-administration at the initial test. The cocaine self-administration section separately shows that nicotine’s effect persisted for at least 10 days, but does not show antagonist blockade at that later time. The paper discusses a dopamine D2-like agonist, not blockade of cocaine intake by a D2 antagonist. (LLM, conf=0.88)
- Partly supportedcites Linker et al., 2020 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results section on D2 receptors (Fig. 5b; page not given) reports that raclopride, a D2 antagonist administered during nicotine pretreatment, blocked the increase in cocaine responding in adolescent rats. The paper does not report the same result for a serotonin 5HT1A antagonist. Its Methods describe cocaine self-administration beginning the day after the four-day nicotine pretreatment, so this experiment also does not establish that the blocked enhancement was long-lasting. (LLM, conf=0.90)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“A similar increase in methamphetamine and ethanol intake following adolescent nicotine treatment has also been seen”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > Chronic effects of adolescent nicotine treatment > Drug reward.
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Dao et al., 2011 source
The Results section reports enhanced initial acquisition of methamphetamine and ethanol self-administration after early-adolescent nicotine pretreatment. The Discussion likewise reports increased initial self-administration of methamphetamine and alcohol, specifying that the effect was seen after pretreatment in early adolescence, not late adolescence or adulthood. (LLM, conf=0.91)
- Partly supportedcites Pipkin et al., 2014 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion reports that low-dose adolescent nicotine exposure increased methamphetamine intake in adult male rats compared with saline exposure. Our copy does not report an increase in ethanol intake; the study examined methamphetamine self-administration. (LLM, conf=0.90)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This was not observed in females.”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > Acute nicotine effects in adolescents > Short-term behavioral effects.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There is a notable discrepancy between human studies, in which teens are thought to be more sensitive to withdrawal than adults, and preclinical studies where the opposite is observed.”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > Chronic effects of adolescent nicotine treatment > Withdrawal syndrome.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Given the substantial evidence for long-term negative impact of adolescent nicotine exposure on brain and behavior”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > Abstract
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Adolescent nicotine exposure causes long-term negative effects on brain and behavior in humans.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“an emerging observational literature suggests similarities across species”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > Abstract
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Findings from animal models of adolescent nicotine exposure can be generalized to humans.
- Rests on an assumption: Observational human studies can confirm that behavioral effects of adolescent nicotine exposure are similar across species.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Animal studies have shown that nicotine has unique effects on adolescent brain.”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“In vitro rubidium efflux assays have shown α4β2* nAChRs to have higher functional activity in striatum and other brain regions in adolescents than adults (Britton et al., 2007; Kota et al., 2007).”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > Acute nicotine effects in adolescents > Acute neurochemical effects on monoamine systems.
What the sources say
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Miller et al. (2019) found an age-related increase in nicotine-induced hypothermia in male mice, with adult mice being the most sensitive.”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > Acute nicotine effects in adolescents > Short-term behavioral effects.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Miller et al. (2019) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“This finding is consistent with an earlier study in which self-administration of nicotine with the tobacco constituent, acetaldehyde, was compared across sex and age (Park et al., 2007).”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > Acute nicotine effects in adolescents > Short-term behavioral effects.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Park et al., 2007 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Some studies have found adolescent rodents to be less sensitive than adults to the behavioral effects of nicotine.”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > Acute nicotine effects in adolescents > Short-term behavioral effects.
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Expression of nAChR binding and subunit mRNA is highly variable across development (Thorpe et al., 2020).”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > Acute nicotine effects in adolescents
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Thorpe et al., 2020 source
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In contrast, acute nicotine treatment induces enhanced or unique effects in adolescents in other behavioral paradigms.”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > Acute nicotine effects in adolescents > Short-term behavioral effects.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This increased sensitivity to lower nicotine doses is also seen in many of the conditioned place preference studies described above.”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > Acute nicotine effects in adolescents > Short-term behavioral effects.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Using drinking behavior to measure the rewarding effect of nicotine, mice have also been shown to have a peculiar vulnerability to oral self-administration of nicotine during early adolescence (Adriani et al., 2002).”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > Acute nicotine effects in adolescents > Short-term behavioral effects.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Adriani et al., 2002 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In vivo microdialysis has confirmed that nicotine induces greater release of dopamine in the nucleus accumbens of adolescents than adults (Corongiu et al., 2020).”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > Acute nicotine effects in adolescents > Acute neurochemical effects on monoamine systems.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Corongiu et al., 2020 source
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These age differences in nicotine-induced locomotor behavior are independent of sex.”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > Acute nicotine effects in adolescents > Short-term behavioral effects.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, differences in nicotine behavioral effects between adolescents and adults cannot be accounted for by differences in drug clearance rate.”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > Acute nicotine effects in adolescents > Short-term behavioral effects.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In the ventral tegmental area (VTA), a limbic dopamine cell body region, expression of many nAChR subunits is higher in adolescents than in adults (Azam et al., 2007).”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > Acute nicotine effects in adolescents
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Azam et al., 2007 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, when this is controlled for, adolescent males are seen to be sensitive to lower doses of nicotine than adults at low schedules of reinforcement.”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > Acute nicotine effects in adolescents > Short-term behavioral effects.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Clinical data have shown a link between teen smoking and use of other drugs, particularly psychostimulants.”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > Chronic effects of adolescent nicotine treatment > Drug reward.
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“This elevated drinking following adolescent nicotine exposure could be prevented by co-administration of the KCC2 agonist, CLP290”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > Chronic effects of adolescent nicotine treatment > Drug reward.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Thomas et al., 2018 source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Preclinical studies have confirmed a positive interaction of nicotine with psychostimulants, particularly following adolescent nicotine exposure.”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > Chronic effects of adolescent nicotine treatment > Drug reward.
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Abrupt cessation of tobacco use in dependent smokers results in withdrawal symptoms that include both somatic and affective components.”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > Chronic effects of adolescent nicotine treatment > Withdrawal syndrome.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Hughes, 2007a
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“In most studies, male adolescents have been found to exhibit less prominent somatic withdrawal symptoms than adults (O’Dell et al., 2006; Kota et al., 2007; Shram et al., 2008; Keeley et al., 2019)”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > Chronic effects of adolescent nicotine treatment > Withdrawal syndrome.
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“smoking and e-cigarette use is associated with greater alcohol consumption in adolescents”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > Chronic effects of adolescent nicotine treatment > Drug reward.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Kristjansson et al., 2015 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Adolescent nicotine also leads to increased rewarding effects of other abused drugs.”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > Chronic effects of adolescent nicotine treatment > Drug reward.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Affective signs of withdrawal, as measured by anxiety-like behaviors on the elevated plus maze and open field, increased brain reward threshold, conditioned place avoidance, and depressive-like behaviors in the forced swim test, are also generally found to be lower in adolescent rats and mice of both sexes than adults (O’Dell et al., 2006, 2007; Kota et al., 2007, 2008; Shram et al., 2008; Iñiguez”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > Chronic effects of adolescent nicotine treatment > Withdrawal syndrome.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites O’Dell et al., 2006, 2007
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Kota et al., 2007, 2008
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Shram et al., 2008 source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“although female adolescent mice have been reported to show increased physical withdrawal signs as compared to adults (Kota et al., 2008).”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > Chronic effects of adolescent nicotine treatment > Withdrawal syndrome.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Kota et al., 2008 source
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“whereas another study of self-reported dependence symptoms suggested there were similarities to tobacco dependence but with some unique indicators (Soule et al., 2020).”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > Chronic effects of adolescent nicotine treatment > Withdrawal syndrome.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Soule et al., 2020 source
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Nicotine withdrawal following chronic passive administration in animals results in a syndrome with both somatic and affective components, including disrupted operant performance, avoidance behavior, weight gain, anxiety-like behaviors, decreased reward sensitivity, and opioid-like withdrawal behaviors (Malin, 2001; Hughes, 2007b).”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > Chronic effects of adolescent nicotine treatment > Withdrawal syndrome.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Malin, 2001 source
- Not matchedcites Hughes, 2007b
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Passive exposure to nicotine during adolescence, but not adulthood, also leads to a subsequent increase in ethanol intake in adults”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > Chronic effects of adolescent nicotine treatment > Drug reward.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Thomas et al., 2018 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“This overall reduction in withdrawal signs in adolescent rodents as compared to adults may reflect a resistance to decreased mesolimbic dopamine function (Natividad et al., 2010, 2012).”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > Chronic effects of adolescent nicotine treatment > Withdrawal syndrome.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Natividad et al., 2010, 2012
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“there is a strong relationship between early onset of smoking and alcohol dependence and problem use”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > Chronic effects of adolescent nicotine treatment > Drug reward.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Grant & Dawson, 1997 source
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“those who used tobacco before age 15 were more than 80x more likely to use illegal drugs than those who did not”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > Chronic effects of adolescent nicotine treatment > Drug reward.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Lai et al., 2000 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“adolescent nicotine exposure can induce long-term changes in brain and behavior”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > Conclusions
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These preclinical findings suggest that teen nicotine vaping may result in similar long-term deleterious effects”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > Conclusions
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Animal models of adolescent nicotine exposure are informative about human adolescent nicotine effects, including vaping.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“preclinical studies have consistently shown unique effects of nicotine on adolescent brain”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > Conclusions
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“adolescent nicotine exposure may produce a long-term vulnerability to the adverse effects of stress, resulting in a negative emotional state”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > Chronic effects of adolescent nicotine treatment > Emotional regulation.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“There is a strong association between teen use of tobacco products and anxiety and depression”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > Chronic effects of adolescent nicotine treatment > Emotional regulation.
What the sources say
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“attentional deficits in animals treated with nicotine as adolescents are reversed by prefrontal cortex infusion of the mGluR2 agonist, LY379268”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > Chronic effects of adolescent nicotine treatment > Cognition.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Animals treated with nicotine as adolescents that were tested as adults showed decreased context-induced freezing”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > Chronic effects of adolescent nicotine treatment > Cognition.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Holliday and Gould, 2016
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Holliday et al., 2016
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“adolescent nicotine induces profound and long-lasting neuronal and molecular alterations in regions that are critical for emotional regulation”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > Chronic effects of adolescent nicotine treatment > Emotional regulation.
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Adult performance in an object learning task and a novel object test were decreased following adolescent nicotine treatment of females, but not males”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > Chronic effects of adolescent nicotine treatment > Cognition.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Mateos et al., 2011 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 47
- Probably not a substantial claim. 4
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Use of e-cigarettes was almost as prevalent among 10th graders, and was particularly troubling among 8th graders who showed a 157% increase in 30-day e-cigarette use over the last two years.”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > The teen vaping crisis
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Miech et al., 2019 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The ‘To the Editor’ results report increased nicotine vaping among both 10th- and 8th-graders from 2017 to 2018. They give an 8th-grade increase of 2.6 percentage points over one year, not a 157% increase over two years, and do not establish that use among 10th-graders was almost as prevalent as among 12th-graders. (LLM, conf=0.83)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“In absolute numbers, the National Youth Tobacco Survey shows that ~5 million students in grades 6–12 have tried e-cigarettes within the past 30 days, an increase from ~3.6 million in 2018 (Cullen et al., 2019).”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > The teen vaping crisis
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Cullen et al., 2019 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The 2018 NYTS table (Discussion) estimates 3.64 million current e-cigarette users among middle and high school students, supporting the comparison figure. It estimates 4.92 million current users of any tobacco product—not e-cigarettes—and the paper covers data only through 2018, so it does not support the claimed increase to about 5 million e-cigarette users. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“According to Monitoring the Future survey data (Miech et al., 2019), 25.4% of 12th graders in 2019 used e-cigarettes within the last thirty days, an increase of 131% from two years previously”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > The teen vaping crisis
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Miech et al., 2019 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The To the Editor section reports Monitoring the Future data showing an increase in nicotine vaping among 12th graders from 2017 to 2018. It does not report 2019 use, a 25.4% prevalence, or a 131% increase over two years; those specifics are not supported by this paper. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Although there has been a decline in teen use of cigarettes in recent years, there has been a huge increase in nicotine vaping.”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > Abstract
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Cullen et al., 2019 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Abstract (page unavailable) reports decreased menthol-cigarette use and increased flavored e-cigarette use among high school tobacco-product users from 2014 to 2018. It does not establish a decline in cigarette use generally or a huge increase in nicotine vaping among teenagers; the reported high-school flavored e-cigarette measure rose from 65.1% to 67.8%, and the middle-school measure was comparable in 2014 and 2018. (LLM, conf=0.87)
- Partly supportedcites Miech et al., 2019 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The To the Editor section reports a sharp increase in nicotine vaping from 2017 to 2018. It also says use of each of six other nicotine products declined in a sample of 12th-graders, but those declines were not statistically significant; it does not establish a broader, multi-year decline in cigarette use among teenagers. (LLM, conf=0.84)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Although introduced as recently as 2007 to the US market, e-cigarettes are now the most commonly used tobacco product among teenagers (Miech et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2019).”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > The teen vaping crisis
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Miech et al., 2017 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction reports rapid growth in e-cigarette use among U.S. students, and the Results say recent vaping was about 50% more prevalent than recent cigarette smoking in the study sample. Neither passage establishes that e-cigarettes were introduced to the U.S. market in 2007 or that they were the most commonly used tobacco product among teenagers overall. (LLM, conf=0.83)
- Partly supportedcites Wang et al., 2019 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Abstract (Results) and Results (Current Tobacco Product Use) identify e-cigarettes as the most commonly used tobacco product among U.S. middle and high school students in 2019. Our copy does not state that e-cigarettes entered the U.S. market in 2007; searches for that date and market introduction found no supporting passage. (LLM, conf=0.87)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Whereas the use of tobacco cigarettes has declined in the United States within recent years, the use of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) has increased exponentially (Cullen et al., 2019; Miech et al., 2019).”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > The teen vaping crisis
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Cullen et al., 2019 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Abstract (page unavailable) reports that, among U.S. high school tobacco-product users, menthol cigarette use decreased and flavored e-cigarette use increased during 2014–2018. It does not establish a decline in cigarette use or an exponential increase in e-cigarette use across the United States generally; the reported e-cigarette increase was from 65.1% to 67.8% in that subgroup. (LLM, conf=0.88)
- Partly supportedcites Miech et al., 2019 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
In “TO THE EDITOR” (page unavailable), the paper reports a sharp rise in nicotine vaping among U.S. adolescents from 2017 to 2018 and says use of six other nicotine products declined, though not significantly. It does not establish exponential growth or a decline in cigarette use across the U.S. population as a whole. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“To date there has been insufficient regulation of these potentially dangerous tobacco products and, as a result, they have been readily available to minors in some states (Paradise, 2014).”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > The teen vaping crisis
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Paradise, 2014 source
The Abstract describes a lack of FDA regulation and says state and local laws do not provide a uniform national policy. It reports that only some jurisdictions had banned sales to minors and warns that gaps in the laws leave access to e-cigarettes as a significant loophole, supporting the paraphrase about availability to minors in some states. (LLM, conf=0.85)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Adult female rats show less aversion to nicotine than do adult males or oviarectomized females, suggesting that ovarian hormones protect against this effect (Torres et al, 2009).”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > Acute nicotine effects in adolescents > Short-term behavioral effects.
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Torres et al, 2009 source
The Discussion reports that at a high nicotine dose, adult males and ovariectomized females showed aversion while intact females showed reward. It explicitly suggests that gonadal hormones may protect females against nicotine’s aversive effects. (LLM, conf=0.94)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Nicotine mediates its effects via nicotinic cholinergic receptors (nAChRs), pentameric ligand-gated ion channels that are widely distributed throughout the brain (Dani, 2015; Zoli et al., 2015).”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > Acute nicotine effects in adolescents
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Dani, 2015 source
The Introduction describes nAChRs as five-subunit receptors whose channels open in response to nicotine. The Conclusion describes their action across broad brain circuits, supporting the claim that they are widely distributed throughout the brain. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.94)
- Supportedcites Zoli et al., 2015 source
The Introduction describes nicotine binding to brain nAChRs and calls them ubiquitously expressed pentameric ion channels. Section 2 identifies nAChRs as members of the ligand-gated ion-channel superfamily. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Although presynaptic dopamine markers are not impacted by this nicotine treatment, there is an increase in the efficacy of striatal D2 dopamine receptors (Mojica et al., 2014; Linker et al., 2020).”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > Acute nicotine effects in adolescents > Acute neurochemical effects on monoamine systems.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Mojica et al., 2014 source
- Partly supportedcites Linker et al., 2020 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results section on D2 receptors states that receptor signaling increases after adolescent nicotine exposure, supporting the D2-efficacy part of the claim. The paper does not establish that presynaptic dopamine markers are unaffected; its Results and Discussion instead report decreases in the presynaptic markers synaptophysin and VGlut2, which are not identified as dopamine markers. (LLM, conf=0.85)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Although nicotine is more rapidly metabolized in rodents during pre-adolescence (P23–25) than in adults, leading to lower blood levels, no pharmacokinetic differences have been seen during the adolescent period starting at P28 (Portugal et al., 2012; Ahsan et al., 2014; Craig et al., 2014; Arany et al., 2017).”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > Acute nicotine effects in adolescents > Short-term behavioral effects.
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Portugal et al., 2012 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Results §3.4 finds no difference in plasma nicotine levels among pre-adolescent, adolescent, and adult mice after acute or chronic treatment; the Discussion likewise reports no age-related difference in nicotine metabolism. This contradicts the claimed faster metabolism and lower blood nicotine levels in pre-adolescents. The absence of a detected difference between adolescents and adults is supported, but Methods §2.1 places the adolescent group at PND 38 at the start of experiments, not P28. (LLM, conf=0.88)
- Could not verifycites Ahsan et al., 2014 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results section on blood nicotine levels reports concentrations after doses that produced place preference or self-administration, but does not compare nicotine metabolism or blood levels across ages. The Methods and Discussion likewise do not address faster metabolism at P23–25 or the absence of pharmacokinetic differences from P28; searches for those terms and age-related blood-level differences found no supporting passage. (LLM, conf=0.76)
- Partly supportedcites Craig et al., 2014 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Abstract and Results report lower plasma nicotine levels and faster nicotine clearance in early-adolescent rats at postnatal day 25 than in adults. The Discussion does not support the more specific claim that faster metabolism caused the lower levels; it points primarily to clearance and distribution and does not find faster conversion to cotinine. The paper compares day-25 rats with adults, so it does not establish that pharmacokinetic differences disappear starting at day 28. Page numbers were unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“nAChRs are expressed early in brain development and play critical maturational roles at many developmental stages, including adolescence (reviewed by Dwyer et al., 2009).”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > Acute nicotine effects in adolescents
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Dwyer et al., 2009 source
The Conclusion states that nAChRs are present from the earliest phases of neural development through adolescence and describes critical developmental roles in the prenatal, early postnatal, and adolescent periods. Section 2 likewise says their expression corresponds to critical developmental events. (LLM, conf=0.95)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Adolescent males have been shown to have a strong anxiolytic response to nicotine treatment which diminishes with age, whereas adolescent females have much lower anxiolytic or outright anxiogenic responses depending on the behavioral test (Elliott et al., 2004; Cao et al., 2010).”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > Acute nicotine effects in adolescents > Short-term behavioral effects.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Elliott et al., 2004 source
- Supportedcites Cao et al., 2010 source
The Results section reports that nicotine had a more prolonged anxiolytic effect in P28 males than females, no effect at P38, and a shorter-lived anxiolytic effect in adult males. The Discussion reports that, in a different behavioral test, nicotine was anxiolytic in adolescent males but anxiogenic in females. (LLM, conf=0.90)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Whereas adolescent mice only showed learning enhancement at the highest nicotine dose, adult mice exhibited behavioral effects at lower nicotine doses.”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > Acute nicotine effects in adolescents > Short-term behavioral effects.
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Kutlu et al., 2016 source
The Results (section 2.1, page unavailable) report enhanced context pre-exposure facilitation at all three nicotine doses in adult mice, but only at the highest dose (0.36 mg/kg) in adolescent mice. The Discussion (section 3, page unavailable) notes that reduced locomotor activity may partly explain the apparent enhancement at the highest dose in the 15-day experiment. (LLM, conf=0.93)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Alternatively, tobacco constituents, which have been shown to enhance reinstatement of nicotine seeking behavior (Costello et al., 2014; Cross et al., 2020), may increase withdrawal signs.”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > Chronic effects of adolescent nicotine treatment > Withdrawal syndrome.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Costello et al., 2014 source
- Supportedcites Cross et al., 2020 source
The Conclusion (page unavailable) reports that including aqueous cigarette-smoke constituents with nicotine enhanced seeking after drug re-exposure without cues. The suggestion that constituents may increase withdrawal signs is the citing authors’ proposed explanation, not a finding attributed to Cross et al. (LLM, conf=0.87)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Although these findings may suggest that adolescent females find nicotine and tobacco more rewarding than males, recent data on middle and high school students suggest few sex differences in rates of tobacco product use, with males showing slightly elevated consumption (Wang et al., 2019).”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > Acute nicotine effects in adolescents > Short-term behavioral effects.
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Wang et al., 2019 source
Split into 2 atoms — 2 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“There is limited research on withdrawal from e-cigarettes, but recent analysis of the US Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health Survey and a clinical trial by the same investgators indicated that withdrawal symptoms were mild in never smokers (Hughes & Callas, 2019; Hughes et al., 2020)”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > Chronic effects of adolescent nicotine treatment > Withdrawal syndrome.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Hughes & Callas, 2019 source
- Supportedcites Hughes et al., 2020 source
This source is the clinical trial cited in the sentence, not the PATH analysis. Its Abstract reports that withdrawal severity was small in never-smokers who used e-cigarettes daily, and the Discussion likewise describes the symptoms as less severe than in former smokers. (LLM, conf=0.92)
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Two studies in which an inhalation method for tobacco smoke or nicotine was used did note substantial physical withdrawal in adolescents, although adults were not included for comparison (de la Pena, 2015; Kallupi et al., 2019).”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > Chronic effects of adolescent nicotine treatment > Withdrawal syndrome.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites de la Pena, 2015 source
- Supportedcites Kallupi et al., 2019 source
The Abstract reports moderate to severe spontaneous withdrawal signs after adolescent rats inhaled nicotine vapor. The Discussion states that the study used male adolescent rats only; although the rats were later tested for nicotine self-administration in adulthood, there was no adult-exposure group for withdrawal comparison. This verdict addresses Kallupi et al. only, not the other study cited in the sentence. (LLM, conf=0.93)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Adolescent nicotine treatment increases subsequent nicotine reward and decreases aversion in adults”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > Chronic effects of adolescent nicotine treatment > Drug reward.
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Adriani et al., 2003 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results report that nicotine pretreatment during periadolescence increased nicotine self-administration in adult rats, and the Discussion interprets this as greater sensitivity to nicotine’s reinforcing effects. Our copy does not report reduced nicotine aversion; searches for aversion and aversive effects did not find support for that part of the claim. No page numbers were available in the indexed passages. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Partly supportedcites Torres et al., 2008 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion reports that adult rats exposed to nicotine during adolescence did not show the aversion seen at the highest dose in naïve adults. But it also says those rats did not show increased nicotine reward: their dose-response curve was relatively flat, and adolescent exposure did not facilitate conditioned place preference in adulthood. (LLM, conf=0.90)
- Partly supportedcites Kallupi et al., 2019 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion (page unavailable) reports that high-dose adolescent nicotine-vapor exposure facilitated nicotine self-administration in adult rats. It suggests increased positive reinforcement as one possible explanation, but also offers withdrawal-related reinforcement; it does not establish increased nicotine reward or decreased nicotine aversion. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“we have used a paradigm in which Sprague Dawley rats are treated once daily for four days with a low dose of nicotine (0.06 mg/kg, i.v.), intended to mimic the early phase of teen smoking, and have shown this enhances subsequent reinforcing effects of cocaine, methamphetamine and alcohol”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > Chronic effects of adolescent nicotine treatment > Drug reward.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites McQown et al., 2007
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Partly supportedcites Dao et al., 2011 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
- Not matched
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Microglial activation then selectively prunes glutamate synapses in the nucleus accumbens and basolateral amygdala, and results in increased cocaine self-administration.”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > Chronic effects of adolescent nicotine treatment > Drug reward.
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Linker et al., 2020 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results section on synaptophysin reports a microglia-dependent decrease in a presynaptic marker in the nucleus accumbens after adolescent nicotine exposure; VGlut2 decreased while VGlut1 did not. The Results section on cocaine self-administration reports that suppressing or eliminating microglia blocked nicotine-induced increases in cocaine reinforcement. The paper does not show selective pruning of glutamate synapses in both the nucleus accumbens and basolateral amygdala: its synaptic-marker findings concern the nucleus accumbens, and decreased marker levels are not direct evidence of pruning. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
In the paper
“Adolescents who use flavorants are also frequently unaware of their nicotine exposure, with 40% of subjects with significant urinary cotinine in a recent study reporting that they used only nicotine-free products (Boykan et al., 2019b).”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > The teen vaping crisis
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Boykan et al., 2019b
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Furthermore, adolescents who used e-cigarettes with non-traditional flavors are more likely to continue vaping and take more puffs per session six months later (Leventhal et al., 2019).”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > The teen vaping crisis
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Leventhal et al., 2019 source
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Whereas Adriani and colleagues found no sex differences in this effect, most other studies have not compared sex and age differences within the same study to allow a direct comparison of males and females.”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > Acute nicotine effects in adolescents > Short-term behavioral effects.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Using an intravenous self-administration paradigm, we have shown that nicotine combined with alcohol is self-administered at much higher rates in male adolescents than adults, and with much greater alcohol intake in adolescents than that of alcohol alone (Figure 2A).”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > Acute nicotine effects in adolescents > Short-term behavioral effects.
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although these withdrawal signs are routinely seen in adult rodents, this is not the case for adolescents.”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > Chronic effects of adolescent nicotine treatment > Withdrawal syndrome.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Flavorants can lead to different patterns of nicotine delivery and a decreased perception of risk (Voos et al., 2019; Jensenn and Boykan, 2019; Boccio et al., 2020).”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > The teen vaping crisis
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Voos et al., 2019
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Jensenn and Boykan, 2019
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Boccio et al., 2020 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Adolescents of both sexes are more sensitive than adults to the rewarding effects of nicotine, as shown in conditioned place preference tests (Vastola et al., 2002; Shram et al., 2006; Kota et al., 2007; Torres et al., 2008; Ahsan et al., 2014; Lenoir et al., 2015), with some studies demonstrating reward after a single pairing of drug and context (Belluzzi et al., 2004; Brielmaier et al., 2007).”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > Acute nicotine effects in adolescents > Short-term behavioral effects.
What the sources say
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, as has been particularly highlighted in pre-clinical studies, described below, nicotine is a neurotoxicant that can produce unique and long-lasting negative behavioral effects in adolescents.”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > The teen vaping crisis
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Findings from animal models of adolescent nicotine exposure can be generalized to humans.
In the paper
“However, in one recent study in which reward was measured by reduction in brain reward thresholds, there was no sex difference in the rewarding effects of nicotine in adults, whereas adolescent females (P40–59) were significantly more sensitive to the rewarding effect of nicotine than their male counterparts (Xue et al., 2020).”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > Acute nicotine effects in adolescents > Short-term behavioral effects.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Xue et al., 2020 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Nicotine-stimulated dopamine release from ventral striatal slices shows complex age- and sex-dependence, being highest in male rats during early adolescence (postnatal day (P)30), with females showing no significant age differences (Azam et al., 2007).”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > Acute nicotine effects in adolescents > Acute neurochemical effects on monoamine systems.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Azam et al., 2007 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Whereas nicotine inhibits locomotor activity in late adolescence and adulthood, it either has no effect (Lopez et al., 2003; Belluzzi et al., 2004; Miller et al., 2019) or stimulates motor activity in early adolescence (Adriani et al., 2002; Cao et al., 2010).”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > Acute nicotine effects in adolescents > Short-term behavioral effects.
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The perceptions of low health risk, combined with the appeal of flavors and minimal market regulations, have created a climate for the wide use of e-cigarettes among adolescents.”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > The teen vaping crisis
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Whereas adults of both sexes experience aversive effects of high doses of nicotine, adolescents tolerate the drug well (Adriani et al., 2002; Shram et al., 2006; Torres et al., 2008, 2009; Lenoir et al., 2015).”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > Acute nicotine effects in adolescents > Short-term behavioral effects.
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Whereas most studies have shown age differences in the acute in vivo effects of nicotine, there is no consistent pattern to these findings.”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > Acute nicotine effects in adolescents > Short-term behavioral effects.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Strain differences were observed in which early-adolescent mice of the DBA/2J strain were insensitive to nicotine-induced hypothermia, whereas C57BL/ 6J were sensitive at this age. However, both strains showed increased sensitivity to nicotine as development progressed.”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > Acute nicotine effects in adolescents > Short-term behavioral effects.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Miller et al. (2019) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Although animals in late adolescence exhibit the same inhibitory locomotor response to acute nicotine as adults, they show greater locomotor sensitization to repeated nicotine treatment (Belluzzi et al., 2004).”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > Acute nicotine effects in adolescents > Short-term behavioral effects.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Belluzzi et al., 2004 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Although one group has argued against a biological vulnerability of adolescents to nicotine (Shram et al., 2008), the majority of studies have shown that adolescent rats readily acquire intravenous nicotine self-administration and have higher drug intake than adults (Chen et al., 2007; Levin et al. 2003, 2007; Natividad et al., 2013: Ahsan et al., 2014; Gellner et al., 2016).”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > Acute nicotine effects in adolescents > Short-term behavioral effects.
What the sources say
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Strain differences have also been noted in adolescent physical withdrawal signs (Hamilton et al., 2010); whereas Sprague Dawley rats of both sexes were found to show significant withdrawal signs for two days after nicotine removal, Long Evans rats exhibit shortened (males) or non-existent (females) withdrawal.”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > Chronic effects of adolescent nicotine treatment > Withdrawal syndrome.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Hamilton et al., 2010 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Whereas both sexes found the drug combination to be highly rewarding during early adolescence (P27), this initial reinforcing effect had significantly diminished in males at later ages (P34 and adult), whereas it remained high in females.”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > Acute nicotine effects in adolescents > Short-term behavioral effects.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Park et al., 2007 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Adolescent, but not adult, nicotine downregulated the chloride channel, KCC2, causing a depolarizing shift in EGABA and resulting inhibition of ethanol-stimulated dopamine release.”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > Chronic effects of adolescent nicotine treatment > Drug reward.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Thomas et al., 2018 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Smoking and drinking are two of the earliest drug use behaviors in human teens, and many reports indicate a positive interaction of smoking and drinking in this age group (Dani & Harris, 2005; Kristjansson et al., 2015).”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > Acute nicotine effects in adolescents > Short-term behavioral effects.
What the sources say
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Adult dependent smokers are also much more likely to be alcoholics than non-smokers, and the great majority of alcoholics smoke”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > Chronic effects of adolescent nicotine treatment > Drug reward.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites DiFranza & Guerrera, 1990 source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Falk et al., 2006
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“A recent study has reported that teen e-cigarette users are more likely to report dependence signs and be daily users if they use high nicotine content pods, such as Juul (Boykan et al., 2019a).”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > Chronic effects of adolescent nicotine treatment > Withdrawal syndrome.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Boykan et al., 2019a
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Nicotine treatment of male adolescent rats resulted in increased impulsive behavior and decreased attention in adulthood, but had no effect on animals that are treated as adults”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > Chronic effects of adolescent nicotine treatment > Cognition.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Counotte et al., 2011 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“only Lewis rats show enhancement of cocaine conditioned place preference and a concomitant potentiation of dopamine response in the nucleus accumbens shell following adolescent nicotine treatment”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > Chronic effects of adolescent nicotine treatment > Drug reward.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Cadoni et al., 2019
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The enhancement of cocaine intake is seen immediately following nicotine pretreatment and persists through adulthood, but is not seen for sucrose.”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > Chronic effects of adolescent nicotine treatment > Drug reward.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“adolescent, but not adult nicotine, induces long-term social withdrawal and deficits in social cognition”
§ Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain > Chronic effects of adolescent nicotine treatment > Emotional regulation.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Jobson et al., 2019 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
Adolescence is a developmental period of high plasticity in brain systems that control motivated behavior and cognition.
“Adolescence is a time of major plasticity of brain systems that regulate motivated behavior and cognition”
The paper relies on this without support.
Adolescence is the period when nicotine use most commonly begins.
“is also the age of peak onset of nicotine use”
The paper relies on this without support.
Findings from animal models of adolescent nicotine exposure can be generalized to humans.
“This review compares and integrates human and animals findings.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The rodent adolescent period studied corresponds to human adolescence.
“no pharmacokinetic differences have been seen during the adolescent period starting at P28”
The paper relies on this without support.
Adolescent nicotine exposure causes long-term negative effects on brain and behavior in humans.
“Given the substantial evidence for long-term negative impact of adolescent nicotine exposure on brain and behavior”
The paper relies on this without support.
Observational human studies can confirm that behavioral effects of adolescent nicotine exposure are similar across species.
“an emerging observational literature suggests similarities across species”
The paper relies on this without support.
Animal models of adolescent nicotine exposure are informative about human adolescent nicotine effects, including vaping.
“Given ethical constraints on conducting experimental drug studies on human teens, this necessitates the use of animal studies.”
“These preclinical findings suggest that teen nicotine vaping may result in similar long-term deleterious effects”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“These findings align with a previous review, which suggested increased anxiety-related behaviour in adolescents (Leslie, 2020), and extend findings by incorporating additional paradigms that measure different aspects of anxiety-related behaviour.”
From Age-dependent Effects of Tobacco Smoke and Nicotine on Cognition and the Brain: A Systematic Review of the Human and Animal Literature Comparing Adolescents and Adults. (2023) · cites this paper as Leslie, 2020
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Clinical studies have shown that nicotine exposure during adolescence, but not adulthood, is associated with subsequent increases in substance use (i.e., “gateway hypothesis”) [6,7,105,145].”
From Nicotine on the developing brain. (2023) · cites this paper as [6]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Nicotine exposure during this highly plastic state induces long term changes in critical circuitry, maturation of monoamine systems, and behavior, including reward related behaviors (see Fig. 3) [4,6,7].”
From Nicotine on the developing brain. (2023) · cites this paper as [6]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“many studies have shown that adolescent rodents show an increased sensitivity to the locomotor activating and rewarding effects of nicotine, blunted withdrawal symptoms, and reduced aversion to high doses of nicotine, compared to adult counterparts.”
From Adolescent nicotine exposure and persistent neurocircuitry changes: unveiling lifelong psychiatric risks (2025) · cites this paper as [90]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Nicotine in adolescence has been shown to increase later sensitivity to the rewarding effects of nicotine, while decreasing its aversive effects; these studies have been thoroughly reviewed elsewhere, see: [90, 92]).”
From Adolescent nicotine exposure and persistent neurocircuitry changes: unveiling lifelong psychiatric risks (2025) · cites this paper as [90]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“These narrative reviews by Leslie and colleagues point to increased nicotine reward sensitivity, dopamine release and activity of the nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (nAChRs), but reduced nicotine aversion during adolescence as compared to adulthood (Leslie, 2020).”
From Age-dependent Effects of Tobacco Smoke and Nicotine on Cognition and the Brain: A Systematic Review of the Human and Animal Literature Comparing Adolescents and Adults. (2023) · cites this paper as Leslie, 2020
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“only two reviews have addressed how effects may differ between adolescence and adulthood (Leslie, 2020; Yuan et al., 2015).”
From Age-dependent Effects of Tobacco Smoke and Nicotine on Cognition and the Brain: A Systematic Review of the Human and Animal Literature Comparing Adolescents and Adults. (2023) · cites this paper as Leslie, 2020
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Nicotine produces reinforcing effects primarily through its action on the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor (nAchR) system, which is still immature during adolescence [186].”
From Consequences of adolescent drug use (2023) · cites this paper as [186]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“microglial signaling is emerging as an important participant in the long-term effects of ANE, and there are important differences in the effects of ANE on adults versus adolescents.”
From Consequences of adolescent drug use (2023) · cites this paper as [186]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“while nicotine inhibits microglia activation in adults, the opposite effect has been found in adolescents [186].”
From Consequences of adolescent drug use (2023) · cites this paper as [186]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Nicotine exposure during critical developmental periods disrupts neural development, and often has long-lasting effects on associated behaviors [3–7].”
From Nicotine on the developing brain. (2023) · cites this paper as [6]
Citations
Cites
Grant, B. F., & Dawson, D. A. (1997) · Journal of Substance Abuse · doi:10.1016/s0899-3289(97)90009-2 · Cited by 1,793
Soneji, S., Barrington-Trimis, J. L., Wills, T. A., Leventhal, A. M., Unger, J. B., Gibson, L. A., Yang, J., Primack, B. A., Andrews, J. A., Miech, R. A., et al. (2017) · JAMA Pediatrics · doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2017.1488 · Cited by 1,170
Effects of abstinence from tobacco: Valid symptoms and time course
Hughes, J. (2007) · Nicotine & Tobacco Research · doi:10.1080/14622200701188919 · Cited by 801 · cited 2×
“Somatic symptoms include bradycardia, insomnia, and gastrointestinal discomfort, whereas negative affective symptoms include anger, anxiety, craving, depression, difficulty concentrating, impatience, insomnia, and restlessness (Hughes, 2007a).”
BackgroundVital Signs: Tobacco Product Use Among Middle and High School Students — United States, 2011–2018
Gentzke, A. S., Creamer, M. R., Cullen, K. A., Ambrose, B. K., Willis, G., Jamal, A., & King, B. A. (2019) · MMWR Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report · doi:10.15585/mmwr.mm6806e1 · Cited by 767
Nicotine and the adolescent brain
Yuan, M., Cross, S. J., Loughlin, S. E., & Leslie, F. M. (2015) · The Journal of Physiology · doi:10.1113/jp270492 · Cited by 623
Self-citation(2006) · Europe PMC (PubMed Central) · Cited by 598
Tobacco product use and associated factors among middle and high school students—United States, 2019
Wang, T. W., Gentzke, A. S., Creamer, M. R., Cullen, K. A., Holder-Hayes, E., Sawdey, M. D., Anic, G. M., Portnoy, D. B., Hu, S., Homa, D. M., et al. (2019) · MMWR. Surveillance Summaries · doi:10.15585/mmwr.ss6812a1 · Cited by 576 · cited 2×
“Although these findings may suggest that adolescent females find nicotine and tobacco more rewarding than males, recent data on middle and high school students suggest few sex differences in rates of tobacco product use, with males showing slightly elevated consumption (Wang et al., 2019).”
BackgroundGoniewicz, M. L., Smith, D. M., Edwards, K. C., Blount, B. C., Caldwell, K. L., Feng, J., Wang, L., Christensen, C., Ambrose, B., Borek, N., et al. (2018) · JAMA Network Open · doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.5937 · Cited by 564 · cited 1×
“, 2019), it should be noted that Juul and other vape pod systems result in adolescent exposure to high doses of nicotine and subsequent dependence (Goniewicz et al., 2018; Boykan et al., 2019).”
BackgroundThe dynamic effects of nicotine on the developing brain
Dwyer, J. B., McQuown, S. C., & Leslie, F. M. (2009) · Pharmacology & Therapeutics · doi:10.1016/j.pharmthera.2009.02.003 · Cited by 559
Self-citationDepression, anxiety, and smoking initiation: a prospective study over 3 years
Patton, G. C., Carlin, J. B., Coffey, C., Wolfe, R., Hibbert, M., & Bowes, G. (1998) · American Journal of Public Health · doi:10.2105/ajph.88.10.1518 · Cited by 513 · cited 1×
“There is a strong association between teen use of tobacco products and anxiety and depression (Patton et al., 1998; Jamner et al., 2003; McKenzie et al., 2010; Leventhal et al., 2016; Cho et al., 2018).”
Background
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Balancing Consideration of the Risks and Benefits of E-Cigarettes
Balfour, D. J. K., Benowitz, N. L., Colby, S. M., Hatsukami, D. K., Lando, H. A., Leischow, S. J., Lerman, C. E., Mermelstein, R. J., NIAURA, R. S., Perkins, K. A., et al. (2021) · American Journal of Public Health · doi:10.2105/ajph.2021.306416 · Cited by 338
“These studies lead some researchers to suspect that adolescent nicotine use in any form may lead to long-term structural and functional brain changes with associated negative implications for cognition or impulse control.(138) However, given species differences and questions about the relevance of experimental animal…”
BackgroundConsequences of adolescent drug use
Steinfeld, M. R., & Torregrossa, M. M. (2023) · Translational Psychiatry · doi:10.1038/s41398-023-02590-4 · Cited by 237
“For example, while nicotine inhibits microglia activation in adults, the opposite effect has been found in adolescents [186].”
BackgroundNicotine on the developing brain.
Castro, E. M., Lotfipour, S., & Leslie, F. M. (2023) · Pharmacological research · doi:10.1016/j.phrs.2023.106716 · Cited by 157
Self-citationEnvironmental Toxicant Exposure and Depressive Symptoms
Guo, J., Garshick, E., Si, F., Tang, Z., Lian, X., Wang, Y. Q., Li, J., & Koutrakis, P. (2024) · JAMA Network Open · doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.20259 · Cited by 113
Nicotine’s effect on cognition, a friend or foe?
Wang, Q., Du, W., Wang, H., Geng, P., Sun, Y., Zhang, J., Wang, W., & Jin, X. (2023) · Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.pnpbp.2023.110723 · Cited by 70
Metadata
- Authors
- Leslie, F. M.
- Affiliations
- University of California, Irvine (US)
- Corresponding author
- Leslie, Frances M.
- ORCID
- Leslie, Frances M.
- Venue
- Pharmacology, Biochemistry, and Behavior
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2020-10
- Volume
- 197
- Pages
- 173010
- ISSN
- 0091-3057 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC7484459
- OpenAlex
- W3045780954
- Cited by
- 178
- References
- 166
- Citations by year
- 2026: 32 · 2025: 33 · 2024: 35 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 35 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 1
- FWCI
- 2.49
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- europepmc.org
- Locations
- Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Nicotinic Acetylcholine Receptors Study
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Prenatal Substance Exposure Effects
- Keywords
- adolescent nicotine exposure, adolescent brain development, nicotine vaping, electronic cigarettes, age and sex differences, drug reward, drug aversion, cognition, emotions, neurochemistry, human-animal comparison
- MeSH terms
- Vaping, Adolescent, Age Factors, Animals, Behavior, Animal, Brain, Cognition, Emotions, Female, Humans, Male, Nicotine, Receptors, Nicotinic, Reward, Substance Withdrawal Syndrome, United States, Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-09-28, under version 3 of the claim definition (prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-09-28 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
