Light or moderate drinking is linked to alcohol related cancers, including breast cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Another good reason to think before you drink Using data from two large cohort studies in the United States, Cao and colleagues1 examine the question of whether light to moderate drinking is associated with an increased risk of cancer. This question is important for a variety of reasons related to public health and alcohol policy. Cancer is one of the major causes of death globally,2 and cancer risks are frequently cited in arguments about formulating thresholds for low risk drinking guidelines.3 For instance, when Canadian guidelines were reformulated recently in 2011, in part based on the argument that consumers would not accept strict guidelines, cancer risk at low doses of alcohol use was introduced into the public health debate.4 Cao and colleagues found that in women, light to moderate drinking was associated with an increased risk of cancers with an established link to alcohol consumption—that is, cancer of the colorectum, female breast, oral cavity, pharynx, larynx, liver, and oesophagus.5 The increased risk was driven mainly by breast cancer. Similar findings emerged for light to moderate male drinkers who had ever smoked. No significant association was found in men who never smoked, or in women outside the relation with breast cancer. Also, no association was found …
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".