[Alcohol dependence in the Italian general population: diagnostic criteria according to general practitioners and to the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI)].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: to identify the criteria used by general practitioners (GPs) for the diagnosis of alcohol dependence (AD) and to compare them with the criteria of the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI). DESIGN: cross-sectional correlational study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: the 55 GPs of Friuli Venezia Giulia Region (Northern Italy) and Tuscany Region (Central Italy) who took part in the research conducted a clinical evaluation of the first 40 patients who came for a medical examination. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: prevalence of AD diagnosed by GPs and CIDI and their association with sociodemographic variables, other diseases, and alcohol consumption. RESULTS: AD prevalence assessed by the GPs was 5.4%, while AD prevalence assessed by the CIDI was 4.4%, with an overlap of about 26%. Patients identified as AD by the GPs were older and more frequently suffering from liver disease and hypertension than patients identified by the CIDI. CONCLUSIONS: the limited overlap between diagnoses of AD made by GPs and the one made by the CIDI is problematic. GPs appear to identify mainly more severe forms of AD, in which excessive consumption of alcohol is associated with the presence of liver disease, while the CIDI could identify younger patients who have not yet developed diseases. GPs' recognition of AD could be increased by using their expertise along with standardised questionnaires which measure alcohol consumption.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".