MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2783366586 · doi:10.9778/cmajo.20160154

Adverse effects of caffeinated energy drinks among youth and young adults in Canada: a Web-based survey

2018· article· en· W2783366586 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCMAJ Open · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCoffee research and impacts
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Waterloo
FundersCanadian Cancer Society Research InstituteCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchPublic Health AgencyPublic Health Agency of Canada
KeywordsWeb surveyEnvironmental healthPsychologyYoung adultAdverse effectMedicineDemographyDevelopmental psychologyComputer scienceWorld Wide WebInternal medicineSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Energy drink consumption has increased dramatically among young Canadians, with anecdotal evidence of adverse health effects. There is a lack of population-based studies to examine the prevalence of adverse events from energy drinks, particularly among young people. The current study sought to assess adverse events from energy drinks among a population-based sample of youth and young adults in Canada. METHODS: An online survey was conducted in 2015 with a national sample of youth (aged 12-17 yr) and young adults (aged 18-24 yr) recruited from a consumer panel. Respondents reported prior consumption of energy drinks as well as adverse outcomes, concurrent activities associated with the outcomes and whether medical attention was sought or considered. Adverse events from coffee were also assessed for comparison. Weighted analyses are reported. RESULTS: Of the 2055 respondents, 1516 (73.8%) reported having ever consumed an energy drink, and 1741 (84.7%) reported having ever consumed coffee (unweighted). Overall, 55.4% of respondents who had ever consumed an energy drink reported that they had experienced at least 1 adverse event, including fast heartbeat (24.7%), difficulty sleeping (24.1%), headache (18.3%), nausea/vomiting/diarrhea (5.1%), chest pain (3.6%) and seizures (0.2%); 3.1% had sought or had considered seeking medical help for an adverse event. The prevalence of reported adverse events was significantly greater among energy drink consumers than among coffee consumers (36.0%) (odds ratio [OR] 2.67 [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.01-2.56]), as was the proportion who reported seeking or considering seeking medical help for adverse events (3.1% v. 1.4%) (OR 2.18 [95% CI 1.39-3.41]). INTERPRETATION: More than half of youth and young adults who had consumed energy drinks reported adverse outcomes, some serious enough to warrant seeking medical help. The adverse outcomes were consistent with the physiologic effects of caffeine but were significantly more prevalent than with other sources of caffeine such as coffee, consistent with data from national adverse event databases.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.438

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.254 · 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