Widespread and sustained cognitive deficits in alcoholism: a meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The cognitive repercussions of alcohol dependence are well documented. However, the literature remains somewhat ambiguous with respect to which distinct cognitive functions are more susceptible to impairment in alcoholism and to how duration of abstinence affects cognitive recovery. Some theories claim alcohol negatively affects specific cognitive functions, while others assert that deficits are more diffuse in nature. This is the first meta-analysis to examine cognition in alcohol abuse/dependence and the duration of abstinence necessary to achieve cognitive recovery. A literature search yielded 62 studies that assessed cognitive dysfunction among alcoholics. Effect size estimates were calculated using the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis V2, for the following 12 cognitive domains: intelligence quotient, verbal fluency/language, speed of processing, working memory, attention, problem solving/executive functions, inhibition/impulsivity, verbal learning, verbal memory, visual learning, visual memory and visuospatial abilities. Within these 12 domains, three effect size estimates were calculated based on abstinence duration. The three groups were partitioned into short- (< 1 month), intermediate- (2 to 12 months) and long- (> 1 year) term abstinence. Findings revealed moderate impairment across 11 cognitive domains during short-term abstinence, with moderate impairment across 10 domains during intermediate term abstinence. Small effect size estimates were found for long-term abstinence. These results suggest significant impairment across multiple cognitive functions remains stable during the first year of abstinence from alcohol. Generally, dysfunction abates by 1 year of sobriety. These findings support the diffuse brain hypothesis and suggest that cognitive dysfunction may linger for up to an average of 1 year post-detoxification from alcohol.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.042 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".