MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2971555253 · doi:10.1186/s13643-019-1139-9

Predictors of aging out of heavy episodic drinking in emerging adults: a systematic review protocol

2019· review· en· W2971555253 on OpenAlexafffund
Tashia Petker, Jillian Halladay, Lana Vedelago, Mark A. Ferro, Jalie A. Tucker, Mark S. Goldman, James G. Murphy, James MacKillop

Bibliographic record

VenueSystematic Reviews · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsImpactUniversity of WaterlooMcMaster UniversitySt. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton
FundersNational Institute on Alcohol Abuse and AlcoholismCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of HealthPeter Boris Centre for Addictions Research
KeywordsMedicineProtocol (science)GerontologyEnvironmental healthAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Heavy episodic drinking (HED) refers to alcohol consumption that exceeds the recommended threshold for a given episode and increases risk for diverse negative alcohol-related consequences. A pattern of weekly HED is most prevalent in emerging adults (i.e., age 18-25). However, rates of HED consistently decline in the mid to late twenties, referred to as 'aging out' or 'maturing out' of HED. Although many individual studies have followed changes in drinking behaviour over the transition to adulthood, there has yet to be a systematic review to identify consistent factors contributing to risk (i.e. failure to age out) and protection (i.e. successful aging out). The objective of this review will be to summarize and critically appraise the literature on factors contributing to aging out of HED among emerging adults. METHODS: A systematic search of observational cohort studies following drinking behaviours in age cohorts overlapping with the emerging adulthood period will be conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychInfo, and CINAHL. Two independent reviewers will evaluate identified studies for inclusion eligibility, extract study data, and assess the quality of included studies. Primary outcomes will be quantity/frequency of alcohol use (e.g. drinks/week) and severity of alcohol-related problems. Predictors of maturing out of HED will be reported narratively, and where appropriate, random effects meta-analyses will be conducted to provide pooled effect sizes. An evidence map will be created to characterize the overall pattern of findings. DISCUSSION: This systematic review will provide a timely and warranted summary of published work contributing to understanding aging out of heavy episodic drinking. Our findings will provide critical commentary on the developmental course of HED during the transition from adolescence to adulthood and will be the first review to consider both protective and risk factors for maturing out of frequent binge drinking. By highlighting factors identifying those at-risk for prolonged heavy episodic drinking, our conclusions will have important treatment implications for primary, secondary, and tertiary intervention strategies. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42017078436 .

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.052
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.067
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.275

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0520.067
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0190.016
Bibliometrics0.0180.013
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0070.009
Open science0.0060.005
Research integrity0.0060.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0540.006

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.317 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSystematic ReviewsSame topicSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207