MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

CDT, GGT, and AST As Markers of Alcohol Use: The WHO/ISBRA Collaborative Project

2002· article· en· W1987988504 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueAlcoholism Clinical and Experimental Research · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAlcohol Consumption and Health Effects
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsCarbohydrate deficient transferrinInternal medicineGamma-glutamyltransferaseMedicineReceiver operating characteristicAlcohol consumptionBody mass indexAlcoholDemographyEnvironmental healthBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Estimates of the performance of carbohydrate deficient transferrin (CDT) and gamma glutamyltransferase (GGT) as markers of alcohol consumption have varied widely. Studies have differed in design and subject characteristics. The WHO/ISBRA Collaborative Study allows assessment and comparison of CDT, GGT, and aspartate aminotransferase (AST) as markers of drinking in a large, well-characterized, multicenter sample. METHODS: A total of 1863 subjects were recruited from five countries (Australia, Brazil, Canada, Finland, and Japan). Recruitment was stratified by alcohol use, age, and sex. Demographic characteristics, alcohol consumption, and presence of ICD-10 dependence were recorded using an interview schedule based on the AUDADIS. CDT was assayed using CDTect and GGT and AST by standard methods. Statistical techniques included receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Multiple regression was used to measure the impact of factors other than alcohol on test performance. RESULTS: CDT and GGT had comparable performance on ROC analysis, with AST performing slightly less well. CDT was a slightly but significantly better marker of high-risk consumption in men. All were more effective for detection of high-risk rather than intermediate-risk drinking. CDT and GGT levels were influenced by body mass index, sex, age, and smoking status. CONCLUSIONS: CDT was little better than GGT in detecting high- or intermediate-risk alcohol consumption in this large, multicenter, predominantly community-based sample. As the two tests are relatively independent of each other, their combination is likely to provide better performance than either test alone. Test interpretation should take account sex, age, and body mass index.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.205
Threshold uncertainty score0.826

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.466
GPT teacher head0.569
Teacher spread0.103 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it