Age‐based differences in quantity and frequency of consumption when screening for harmful alcohol use
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Survey questions on usual quantity and frequency of alcohol consumption are regularly used in screening tools to identify drinkers requiring intervention. The aim of this study was to measure age-based differences in quantity and frequency of alcohol consumption on the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) and how this relates to the prediction of harmful or dependent drinking. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Australia. PARTICIPANTS: Data were taken from 17 399 respondents who reported any alcohol consumption in the last year and were aged 18 and over from the 2016 National Drug Strategy Household Survey, a broadly representative cross-sectional survey on substance use. MEASUREMENT: Respondents were asked about their frequency of consumption, usual quantity per occasion and the other items of the AUDIT. FINDINGS: In older drinkers, quantity per occasion [β = 0.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.43, 0.64 in 43-47-year-olds as an example] was a stronger predictor of dependence than frequency per occasion (β = 0.24, 95% CI = 0.17, 0.31). In younger drinkers the reverse was true, with frequency a stronger predictor (β = 0.54, 95% CI = 0.39, 0.69 in 23-27-year-olds) than quantity (β = 0.26, 95% CI = 0.18, 0.34 in 23-27-year-olds). Frequency of consumption was not a significant predictor of dependence in respondents aged 73 years and over (β = -0.03, 95% CI = -0.08, 0.02). Similar patterns were found when predicting harmful drinking. Despite this, as frequency of consumption increased steadily with age, the question on frequency was responsible for at least 65% of AUDIT scores in drinkers aged 53 years and over. CONCLUSIONS: In younger drinkers, frequent drinking is more strongly linked to dependence and harmful drinking subscale scores on the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) than quantity per occasion, yet quantity per occasion has a stronger influence on the overall AUDIT score in this group. In older drinkers, frequency of consumption is not always a significant predictor of the AUDIT dependence subscale and is a weak predictor of the harmful drinking subscale.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".