Transition probabilities for four states of alcohol use in adolescence and young adulthood: what factors matter when?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Risky single-occasion drinking (RSOD) is a health threat, particularly at younger ages. The study aimed to quantify transition probabilities (TPs) between abstinence, use of alcohol, RSOD and frequent RSOD, and to understand how TPs are associated with key demographic factors. DESIGN: Cohort study (baseline, two follow-ups). A Markov model was fitted to estimate annual TPs and hazard ratios (HRs) for age, sex and socio-economic status (SES). SETTING: Adolescent and young adult general population of Munich (Germany) and surrounding areas. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 3021 people aged 14-25 years at baseline in 1995 followed-up in 1998/1999 (n = 2548) and 2003-2005 (n = 2210). MEASUREMENTS: Alcohol use, RSOD status, age, sex and SES (subjective financial situation) were assessed in a standardized interview. FINDINGS: The highest TPs (> 65%) were found for staying in the same drinking state. Higher age [hazard ratio (HR) for 1-year increase = 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.84-0.91], being female (HR = 0.30, 95% CI = 0.21-0.42), and a high SES (HR = 0.64, 95% CI = 0.43-0.97) were associated with a lower hazard to progress from use to RSOD. While age was associated predominantly with transitions between abstinence and alcohol use, sex was more relevant for transitions associated with RSOD and frequent RSOD. CONCLUSIONS: German adolescents and young adults tend to be stable in the drinking states of abstinence, use of alcohol, risky single-occasion drinking and frequent risky single-occasion drinking. Females are less likely to transition to riskier states and more likely to transition back from frequent risky single-occasion drinking, higher age is associated with lower hazard of transitioning and participants of higher socio-economic status are less likely to transition from 'use of alcohol' to 'risky single-occasion drinking'.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".