Caffeinated energy drink consumption and predictors of use among secondary school students over time in the COMPASS cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Consumption of caffeinated energy drinks (CED) by youth is a public health priority, given the lack of regulation and evidence for both short and long-term health effects of CED use. Considering the potential risks associated with excessive caffeine consumption, this paper examined CED consumption and predictors of CED use over time in a large sample of Canadian secondary school students participating in the COMPASS study. Using linked longitudinal data (n = 4949) from the first three years of the COMPASS study (2012/13 to 2014/15), three logistic Generalized Estimated Equation models were performed to examine predictors of weekday CED use, weekend CED use, and weekly CED use. The prevalence of weekly CED use remained fairly consistent across the three years of follow-up; 12.5% in year-1, 11.3% in year-2, and 11.4% in year-3. Smokers and marijuana users at follow-up were all at greater odds of weekday or weekly CED use, regardless of baseline use. Binge drinkers at baseline were at greater odds for weekday or weekly CED use, but not if they started binge drinking after their baseline year. Marijuana users at follow-up were all at greater odds of weekend CED use, regardless of baseline marijuana use. >1 in 10 youth reported consuming CEDs one or more times per week, where specific subpopulations of youth, such as marijuana users, appear to be more frequent CED users. Although CED use remained relatively constant over the three-year period examined, prevalence of CED use remains problematic among secondary school students.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 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".