Improved estimates for individual and population-level alcohol use in the United States, 1984-2020
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims: While nationally representative alcohol surveys are a mainstay of public health monitoring, they underestimate consumption at the population level. This paper demonstrates how to adjust individual-level survey data using aggregated alcohol per capita (APC) data for improved individual- and population-level consumption estimates. Design and Methods: For the period 1984-2020, data on self-reported alcohol consumption in the past 30 days were taken from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) involving participants (18+ years) in the United States (US). Monthly abstainers were reallocated into lifetime abstainers, former drinkers, and 12-month drinkers using the 2005 National Alcohol Survey data. To correct for under-coverage of alcohol use, we triangulated APC and survey data by upshifting quantity (average grams/day) and frequency (drinking days/week) of alcohol use based on national- and state-level APC data. Results were provided for the US as a whole and for selected states to represent different drinking patterns. Findings: The corrections described above resulted in improved correspondence between survey and APC data. Following our procedure, national estimates of alcohol quantity increased from 45% to 77% of APC estimates. Both quantity and frequency of alcohol use were upshifted; by upshifting to 90% of APC, we were able to fit trends and distributions in APC patterns for individual states and the US. Conclusions: An individual-level dataset which more accurately reflects the alcohol use of US citizens was achieved. This dataset will be invaluable as a research tool and for the planning and evaluation of alcohol control policies for the US. The methodology described can also be used to adjust individual-level alcohol survey data in other geographical settings.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".