A systematic review of relative risks for the relationship between chronic alcohol use and the occurrence of disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alcohol use is causally linked to the development of and mortality from numerous diseases. The aim of this study is to provide an update to a previous systematic review of meta-analyses that quantify the sex-specific dose-response risk relationships between chronic alcohol use and disease occurrence and/or mortality. An updated systematic search of multiple databases was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses criteria to identify meta-analyses published from January 1, 2017, to March 8, 2021, which quantified the risk relationships between chronic alcohol use and the risk of disease occurrence and/or mortality. This systematic review was not preregistered. The comparator was people who have never consumed at least one standard drink of alcohol. Measurements included relative risks, odds ratios, and hazard ratios of disease occurrence and/or mortality based on long-term alcohol intake measured in grams per day. The systematic search yielded 5953 articles, of which 14 were included in the narrative review. All diseases showed an increased risk of occurrence as alcohol use increased. At all doses examined, alcohol had a significant detrimental effect on tuberculosis, lower respiratory infections, oral cavity and pharyngeal cancers, esophageal cancer, colorectal cancer, liver cancer, laryngeal cancer, epilepsy, hypertension, liver cirrhosis, and pancreatitis (among men). For ischemic heart disease, ischemic stroke, and intracerebral hemorrhage, protective effects from low-dose chronic alcohol use among both men and women were observed. Low-dose alcohol consumption also had a protective effect for diabetes mellitus and pancreatitis among women (approximately to 50 g/day and 30 g/day, respectively). Alcohol use increases the risk of numerous infectious and noncommunicable diseases in a dose-response manner. Higher levels of alcohol use have a clear detrimental impact on health; however, at lower levels of use, alcohol can have both disease-specific protective and detrimental effects.
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 | 0.026 | 0.112 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.027 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".