Lower Blood Alcohol Concentration Among HIV‐Positive Versus HIV‐Negative Individuals Following Controlled Alcohol Administration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although it has been purported that HIV-positive individuals may experience a greater degree of intoxication than HIV-negative individuals following acute alcohol consumption, no research to date has empirically tested this supposition. The present investigation entailed a randomized controlled experiment to identify whether the administration of a weight-specified dose of alcohol would lead to differential blood alcohol concentrations (BACs) among HIV-positive versus HIV-negative men. METHODS: In a specialized barroom laboratory, 143 men (n = 76 HIV-positive and n = 67 HIV-negative; mean age = 42.9) consumed beverages based on a formulation of 0.7 g alcohol/kg body weight over a 15-minute time frame. BAC was assessed via breathalyzer at 2 set time points (10 and 13 minutes postconsumption) and then periodically until detoxification (BAC < 0.040%). Primary outcomes included (i) area under the curve (AUC), calculated based on all of one's BAC readings, (ii) "BAC-EXP," defined as one's BAC reading 13 minutes postconsumption, and (iii) BAC-PEAK, defined as one's highest recorded BAC reading. RESULTS: Contrary to predictions, AUC (t(141) = 2.23, p = 0.027), BAC-EXP (t(141) = 2.68, p = 0.008), and BAC-PEAK (t(141) = 2.29, p = 0.023) were significantly lower among HIV-positive versus HIV-negative participants. These effects were sustained in multivariable models controlling for age, race, and AUDIT-based hazardous drinking classification. Among the HIV-positive sample, outcomes did not significantly differ based on HIV viral load detectability, antiretroviral therapy (ART) status, or ART adherence. CONCLUSIONS: The administration of a controlled, weight-specified dose of alcohol led to lower BACs among HIV-positive versus HIV-negative participants. These differences might derive from decreased body fat percentage and delayed gastric emptying associated with HIV seropositivity; however, additional research is necessary to verify these mechanisms. Unique alcohol dosing formulas based on HIV serostatus may be required in future alcohol administration experiments involving HIV-positive samples.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".