Subjective alcohol responses in high‐ and low‐risk adolescents: results from the Dresden Longitudinal Study on Alcohol Use in Young Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Research shows that sensitivity to certain alcohol responses conveys risk for problem drinking. This study aimed to determine if high-risk adolescent drinkers infuse more alcohol and experience greater alcohol-induced stimulation and wanting and less sedation than low-risk adolescent drinkers. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: Ninety-two low- (n = 38) and high-risk (n = 54) adolescent drinkers, as determined by Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test scores of < 6 or ≥ 6, respectively, participated in the Dresden Longitudinal Study on Alcohol Use in Young Adults in which intravenous alcohol self-administration was examined in a mixed within- and between-subjects design. SETTING: Technische Universität Dresden. Dresden, Germany. MEASUREMENTS: Predictors were drinking status (high- versus low-risk), time and their interactions. Outcomes were arterial blood alcohol concentration (aBAC); alcohol-induced stimulation, sedation and wanting assessed at baseline, 10 (alcohol prime), 45, 65, 85, 105, 125 and 145 minutes. Covariates were family history of alcohol use disorder, sex and aBAC. RESULTS: The alcohol prime dose produced similar sharp increases in stimulation and sedation in high- and low-risk drinkers (time P < 0.001; group × time P > 0.05). During self-administration, high-risk drinkers reached higher aBACs (P = 0.028) at a faster rate (group × time P < 0.001), and experienced further increases in stimulation (group × time P = 0.005) but with similar sedation (group × time P = 0.794) than in low-risk drinkers. High-risk drinkers also exhibited greater tonic alcohol wanting (group P = 0.003) throughout the session. CONCLUSIONS: High-risk adolescent drinkers appear to have heightened sensitivity to alcohol-induced stimulation and tonic high levels of wanting compared with low-risk adolescent drinkers.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".