Relationship between the cardiac response to acute intoxication and alcohol‐induced subjective effects throughout the blood alcohol concentration curve
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: There is evidence to suggest that individual differences in the subjective response to alcohol exist and exaggerated cardiac response to alcohol has been suggested to be a marker of increased sensitivity to the stimulant properties of alcohol. OBJECTIVES: The present investigation examines the relationship between cardiac reactivity to alcohol measured on the ascending limb of the Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) curve and the subjective stimulant and sedative effects of alcohol throughout the BAC curve. METHODS: The stimulant and sedative effects of alcohol anticipatory to alcohol and during the ascending and descending limbs of the BAC curve were evaluated using the Biphasic Alcohol Effects Scale in 39 male social drinkers. RESULTS: Cardiac response to ethanol measured on the ascending limb of the BAC curve was positively correlated with intoxicated stimulant effects at numerous time points during the ascending and descending limbs of the BAC curve (ps < 0.01). No associations were found between cardiac change following alcohol and alcohol-related sedative effects at any time point. CONCLUSIONS: Objective and subjective reports of stimulation post-alcohol ingestion may increase risk for problematic 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".