4.4 Article Proceedings Paper

Smoking is associated with neurocognitive deficits in alcoholism

期刊

DRUG AND ALCOHOL DEPENDENCE
卷 82, 期 2, 页码 119-126

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2005.08.013

关键词

cognitive function; alcoholism; cigarette smoking

资金

  1. NIAAA NIH HHS [R37 AA007065, R01 AA012217-01A1, R37 AA07065, AA12217, R01 AA012217] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Impaired problem solving, visual-spatial processing, memory, and cognitive proficiency are consequences of severe alcoholism. Smoking is much more prevalent among alcoholics than the general population, yet the possible neurocognitive effects of cigarette smoking in alcoholism have not been studied, despite evidence that long-term smoking is associated with neurocognitive deficits. Objective: Determine whether smoking contributes to neurocognitive deficits associated with alcoholism. Design: Neurocognitive function was examined in a community-recruited (n = 172) sample of men. Alcohol problems/alcoholism were measured by the lifetime alcohol problems score (LAPS), DSM-IV diagnosis, and monthly drinking rate. Smoking was measured in pack-years. Neurocognitive function was measured with IQ (short version of WAIS-R), and cognitive proficiency (fast, accurate performance). Results: Both alcoholism and smoking were negatively correlated with neurocognitive function. When alcoholism and smoking were included in regression models, smoking remained a significant predictor for both measures, but alcoholism remained significant only for IQ. Conclusions: Both smoking and alcoholism were related to neurocognitive function. Smoking may explain some of the relationship between alcoholism and neurocognitive function, perhaps especially for measures that focus on proficiency. Future studies are necessary to more fully understand the effects of smoking on neerocognitive function in alcoholism. (c) 2005 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据