Alcohol and Brain Development in Adolescents and Young Adults: A Systematic Review of the Literature and Advisory Report of the Health Council of the Netherlands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Young people, whose brains are still developing, might entail a greater vulnerability to the effects of alcohol consumption on brain function and development. A committee of experts of the Health Council of the Netherlands evaluated the state of scientific knowledge regarding the question whether alcohol negatively influences brain development in young people. A systematic literature search for prospective studies was performed in PubMed and PsychINFO, for longitudinal studies of adolescents or young adults ranging between 12 and 24 y of age at baseline, investigating the relation between alcohol use and outcome measures of brain structure and activity, cognitive functioning, educational achievement, or alcohol use disorder (AUD), with measures at baseline and follow-up of the outcome of interest. Data were extracted from original articles and study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. A total of 77 studies were included, 31 of which were of sufficient quality in relation to the study objectives. There were indications that the gray matter of the brain develops abnormally in young people who drink alcohol. In addition, the more often young people drink or the younger they start, the higher the risk of developing AUD later in life. The evidence on white matter volume or quality, brain activity, cognitive function, and educational achievement is still limited or unclear. The committee found indications that alcohol consumption can have a negative effect on brain development in adolescents and young adults and entails a risk of later AUD. The committee therefore considers it a wise choice for adolescents and young adults not to drink alcohol.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".