Prevalence and Reasons for Consumption of Energy Drinks among Adolescents and Young Adults in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p><strong>OBJECTIVE:</strong> The aim of this study was to investigate how frequently male and female school and university students consumed energy drinks, their reasons for drinking them, and the extent of their knowledge about the beverages.</p><p><strong>METHODS:</strong> A self-administrated questionnaire was used to collect data from 4355 students (ages 12-26 years).</p><p><strong>RESULTS:</strong> Nearly 60% of the students consumed at least one can of an energy drink per week, and 63.3% drank two to four cans per week. Code Red was the most popular brand consumed (52.8%). Thirty-nine percent of the students consumed energy drinks in the afternoon, and 68.7% drank them because they enjoyed the flavor.</p><p><strong>CONCLUSION:</strong> More than half of the participants consumed energy drinks at least once per week. Students’ knowledge and practices regarding energy drinks need improvement so they will understand the drinks’ contents and their impacts on health. Food labels should mention the total amount of caffeine and provide clear information to consumers about appropriate limits and the risks of excessive consumption.</p>
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".