Alcohol Mixed With Energy Drinks and Risk of Injury: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The present study is a systematic review of the literature examining the relationship between alcohol mixed with energy drinks (AmED) and injury. The study provides a summary and critical analysis of the current literature. METHOD: The review was conducted using PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews. Studies included in the review were those that quantified the relationship between AmED use and injury risk relative to alcohol only. Records were considered along the following theme areas: controlled for drinking behaviors, controlled for impulsivity or risk-taking propensity, examined sex differences, and self-reported injury outcomes for (a) AmED versus alcohol consumers and (b) AmED versus alcohol sessions. RESULTS: The results support the association between AmED and increased risk of injury; however, substantial variability in harm outcomes and methodology makes it difficult to determine the extent of this risk. CONCLUSIONS: There is significant need for further examination of the role of AmED use in the risk of injury. A better understanding of the relationship between AmED use and injury and of the potential underlying mechanisms is crucial for informing effective preventive intervention strategies. This review can be used to inform the public and health practitioners of the risks associated with AmED use. Further, translating this knowledge to policy makers could inform regulations on the availability of AmED, with the goal of reducing injury-related outcomes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".