Patterns of Alcohol Consumption and Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Case-Crossover Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Alcohol consumption has been causally related to the incidence of coronary heart disease, but the role of alcohol before the event has not been explored in depth. This study tested the hypothesis that heavy drinking (binge drinking) increases the risk of subsequent acute myocardial infarctions (AMI), whereas light to moderate drinking occasions decrease the risk. METHODS: Case-crossover design of 250 incident AMI cases in Switzerland, with main hypotheses tested by conditional logistic regression. RESULTS: Alcohol consumption 12 h before the event significantly increased the risk of AMI (OR 3.1; 95% CI 1.4-6.9). Separately, the effects of moderate and binge drinking before the event on AMI were of similar size but did not reach significance. In addition, AMI patients showed more binge drinking than comparable control subjects from the Swiss general population. CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence that alcohol consumption before the event had protective effects on AMI. Instead, alcohol consumption increased the risk.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".