Attitudes and Recommendations of Physicians towards Alcohol Consumption and Cardiovascular Health: A Perspective from Argentina
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite epidemiological findings of improvements in cardiovascular risk factors with a light-to-moderate intake of alcohol, many misconceptions remain regarding alcohol intake and the risks and benefits of consumption. We sought to examine physician attitudes and recommendations regarding alcohol intake in a cohort of Argentine physicians and to establish their sources of knowledge. An online national survey was distributed through the Argentine Federation of Cardiology (FAC) to cardiologists, internal medicine specialists, general and other subspecialty physicians in Argentina. The survey was completed by 745 physicians, of whom 671 (90%) were cardiologists. In total, 35% of physicians viewed moderate alcohol intake to be beneficial for cardiovascular health, 36% believed only wine offered such benefits, 24% viewed any intake to be harmful, and 5% had other opinions. More than half (57%) self-reported their knowledge to come from academic sources. Regarding knowledge of drinking guidelines, only 41% of physicians were aware of the concept of ‘standard drink’. Physicians were generally not comfortable converting ‘standard drinks’ into other metric units, however men tended to be more comfortable than women (p=0.052). Physicians were not satisfied with their knowledge of drinking guidelines (3.01 ± 2.73, on a 0-10 scale). Physicians were generally comfortable in counselling patients regarding safe-limits of consumption (6.22 ± 3.20, on a 0-10 scale). Argentine physicians were not satisfied with their knowledge of alcohol consumption guidelines or their understanding of the reported metrics. Only one-third of study participants viewed moderate alcohol intake as beneficial for cardiovascular health. This study shows the necessity to optimize the sources of knowledge.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".