Guidelines and reality in studies on the economic costs of alcohol use: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: To identify guidelines for estimating alcohol-attributable cost of illness (COI) and actual COI studies, and to assess to what extent core recommendations have been implemented. Design: The systematic review was conducted in February 2019 according to the PRISMA statement. Relevant COI guidelines and actual alcohol COI studies published since 2009 (when the last systematic review was published) were identified by searching databases MEDLINE and EMBASE, as well as literature known by the authors. Measures: Standards and recommendations of published COI guidelines, and actual COI studies estimating the total costs of alcohol. Findings: Fourteen guidelines and eighteen COI studies were identified, and relevant indicators were extracted. Large discrepancies between recommended and implemented methods were determined. Contrary to most current guidelines, which were barely acknowledged at all, (a) predefined direct and indirect cost groups were only partially included, (b) estimates were compared with GDP in only about half of the studies, and (c) avoidable costs – a complementary concept to the more common scenario of complete alcohol abstinence – were never estimated. Conclusions: Adherence to guidelines in published COI studies is low. We propose content-related and software-based solutions to adopting a common standard, which could reduce heterogeneity and enhance comparability in alcohol COI studies.
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 | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".