MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2002909381 · doi:10.1002/mpr.204

Comparative quantification of alcohol exposure as risk factor for global burden of disease

2007· article· en· W2002909381 on OpenAlexafffund
Jürgen Rehm, Jens Klotsche, Jayadeep Patra

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAlcohol Consumption and Health Effects
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
FundersCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthWorld Health Organization
KeywordsPer capitaBurden of diseaseEnvironmental healthConsumption (sociology)Alcohol consumptionDisease burdenAlcoholDiseaseRisk factorIndex (typography)MedicineDemographyComputer scienceBiologyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Alcohol has been identified as one of the most important risk factors in the burden experienced as a result of disease. The objective of the present contribution is to establish a framework to comparatively quantify alcohol exposure as it is relevant for burden of disease. Different key indicators are combined to derive this quantification. First, adult per capita consumption, composed of recorded and unrecorded consumption, yields the best overall estimate of alcohol exposure for a country or region. Second, survey information is used to allocate the per capita consumption into sex and age groups. Third, an index for detrimental patterns of drinking is used to determine the additional impact on injury and cardiovascular burden. The methodology is applied to estimate global alcohol exposure for the year 2002. Finally, assumptions and potential problems of the approach are discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.401
GPT teacher head0.654
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations155
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Methods in Psychiatric ResearchSame topicAlcohol Consumption and Health EffectsFrench-language works237,207