Patterns of Alcohol Consumption and Myocardial Infarction Risk
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although moderate alcohol use is associated with protection against myocardial infarction (MI), it is not known whether this effect is generalizable to populations worldwide. It is also uncertain whether differences in the pattern of alcohol use (and in particular heavy episodic consumption) between different regions negate any beneficial effect. METHODS AND RESULTS: We included 12 195 cases of first MI and 15 583 age- and sex-matched controls from 52 countries. Current alcohol use was associated with a reduced risk of MI (compared with nonusers: adjusted odds ratio, 0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.80-0.94; P=0.001); however, the strength of this association was not uniform across different regions (region-alcohol interaction P<0.001). Heavy episodic drinking (≥6 drinks) within the preceding 24 hours was associated with an increased risk of MI (odds ratio, 1.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-1.9; P=0.01). This risk was particularly elevated in older individuals (for age >65 years: odds ratio, 5.3; 95% confidence interval, 1.6-18; P=0.008). CONCLUSIONS: In most participants, low levels of alcohol use are associated with a moderate reduction in the risk of MI; however, the strength of this association may not be uniform across different countries. An episode of heavy drinking is associated with an increased risk of acute MI in the subsequent 24 hours, particularly in older individuals.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it