Steps towards Constructing a Global Comparative Risk Analysis for Alcohol Consumption: Determining Indicators and Empirical Weights for Patterns of Drinking, Deciding about Theoretical Minimum, and Dealing with Different Consequences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to conduct a comparative risk analysis for alcohol within the Global Burden of Disease Study (GBD 2000), several questions had to be answered. (1) What are the appropriate dimensions for alcohol consumption and how can they be categorized? The average volume of alcohol and patterns of drinking were selected as dimensions. Both dimensions could be looked upon as continuous but were categorized for practical purposes. The average volume of drinking was categorized into the following categories: abstention; drinking 1 (> 0-19.99 g pure alcohol daily for females, > 0-39.99 g for males); drinking 2 (20-39.99 g for females, 40-59.99 g for males), and drinking 3 (> or =40 g for females, > or =60 g for males). Patterns of drinking were categorized into four levels of detrimental impact based on an optimal scaling analysis of key informant ratings. (2) What is the theoretical minimum for both dimensions? A pattern of regular light drinking (at most 1 drink every day) was selected as theoretical minimum for established market economies for all people above age 45. For all other regions and age groups, the theoretical minimum was set to zero. Potential problems and uncertainties with this selection are discussed. (3) What are the health outcomes for alcohol and how do they relate to the dimensions? Overall, more than 60 disease conditions were identified as being related to alcohol consumption. Most chronic conditions seem to be related to volume only (exceptions are coronary heart disease and ischemic stroke), and most acute conditions seem to be related to volume and patterns. In addition, using methodology based on aggregate data, patterns were relevant for attributing harms for men but not women.
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 | 0.256 | 0.424 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.023 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".