MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2098465498 · doi:10.1080/09595230600944453

Global burden of disease from alcohol, illicit drugs and tobacco

2006· review· en· W2098465498 on OpenAlexaff
Jürgen Rehm, Benjamin J. Taylor, Robin Room

Bibliographic record

VenueDrug and Alcohol Review · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAlcohol Consumption and Health Effects
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental healthBurden of diseaseMedicineDisease burdenAlcoholDiseasePsychological interventionTobacco usePsychiatryPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of alcohol, tobacco and illicit drugs entails considerable burden of disease: in 2000, about 4% of the global burden as measured in disability adjusted life years was attributable to each alcohol and tobacco, and 0.8% to illicit drugs. The burden of alcohol in the above statistic was calculated as net burden, i.e. incorporating the protective health effects. Tobacco use was found to be the most important of 25 risk factors for developed countries in the comparative risk assessment underlying the data. It had the highest mortality risk of all the substance use categories, especially for the elderly. Alcohol use was also important in developed countries, but constituted the most important of all risk factors in emerging economies. Alcohol use affected younger people than tobacco, both in terms of disability and mortality. The burden of disease attributable to the use of legal substances clearly outweighed the use of illegal drugs. A large part of the substance-attributable burden would be avoidable if known effective interventions were implemented.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.328 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations363
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDrug and Alcohol ReviewSame topicAlcohol Consumption and Health EffectsFrench-language works237,207