Paradoxical Changes in Alcohol Consumption and CAGE Ratings Between 1996 and 2006 in the General Population of Geneva
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To assess changes between 1996 and 2006 in alcohol use and dependence in the general population of Geneva, Switzerland. METHODS: Postal surveys of alcohol consumption patterns in representative samples of the general population were compared. The four-item CAGE (Cut down, Annoyed, Guilty, Eye-opener) screener was used to estimate alcohol dependence. RESULTS: There were 742 participants in 1996 (response rate 75%) and 1487 in 2006 (76%). The proportions of daily drinkers (1996: 18%; 2006: 10%; P < 0.001), and of heavy drinkers (>14 drinks/week) decreased between 1996 (13%) and 2006 (7%; P < 0.001). However, decreases in heavy drinking were limited to men aged 30+ and women aged 30-49. The average number of drinks/week decreased from 6.4 in 1996 to 5.0 in 2006 (P < 0.001). Perception of safe drinking levels decreased between 1996 (4 drinks/day) and 2006 (3 drinks/day, P < 0.001). The prevalence of alcohol dependence, defined as a CAGE score ≥ 2, increased among women (1996: 6%; 2006: 14%; P = 0.001), but not among men (1996: 18%, 2006: 19%). Two of the CAGE items were endorsed more frequently by women in 2006 than in 1996: 'guilty' (1996: 9%; 2006: 15%; P = 0.018) and 'should cut down' (1996: 12%; 2006: 18%; P = 0.04). Drinking and driving did not change significantly over time (2006: 21% of men, 9% of women). CONCLUSION: Alcohol consumption, heavy drinking and perceived levels of safe drinking decreased over these 10 years, but not drunk driving or alcohol dependence. Paradoxically, alcohol dependence even increased among women, driven by CAGE items 'guilty' and 'should cut down', suggesting that changes in CAGE scores reflected changes in the social acceptability of drinking rather than changes in dependence.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".