Liver holidays? A meta‐analysis of drinking the same amount of alcohol daily or non‐daily and the risk for cirrhosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Several alcohol drinking guidelines indicate that daily alcohol consumption should be avoided because of its negative impact on the liver and to avoid the development of alcohol use disorders. Evidence that supports this recommendation is scarce. Our aim was to compare daily versus non-daily drinking and its association with liver cirrhosis. METHODS: We conducted a review using PubMed/Medline and Embase as databases, selecting longitudinal or case control studies. A random effects meta-analysis was conducted. RESULTS: Five mainly large-scale studies were retrieved. Daily drinking was associated with a significant increase in risk of liver cirrhosis compared to non-daily drinking, with a pooled relative risks of 1.71 (95% confidence interval 1.23-2.23) for men and 1.56 (95% confidence interval 1.39-1.74) for women. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: The consistent exposure to acetaldehyde and other toxins for daily drinkers may explain our findings. There should be days of abstinence to allow the liver to recover, especially for heavier 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 | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".