Is the association between psychological distress and risky alcohol consumption shifting over time? An age-period-cohort analysis of the Australian population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explored age, period, and cohort effects associated with trends in psychological distress and risky alcohol consumption. Data came from 108,536 Australians aged 14-79 years old from birth cohorts between 1925-2005, endorsing past year alcohol use in the 2004-2019 Australian National Drug Strategy Household Surveys. Risky alcohol consumption was split into exceeding weekly national drinking limits (>10 drinks per week) or daily limits (>4 drinks per day). An extended hierarchical age-period-cohort model was used to investigate differential effects on trends in psychological distress. Psychological distress showed an inverse U-shape throughout the lifespan with a peak in distress at age 60. Exceeding weekly alcohol limits was positively related to psychological distress prior to age 40 while exceeding daily alcohol limits remained positively related across the lifespan. There were relatively flat period effects, with no alcohol-related changes in psychological distress across years. Lastly, psychological distress gradually increased across birth cohorts until a notable spike among Australians born from 1980-2005 alongside weakening alcohol-related cohort effects. Overall, the recent increases in psychological distress did not appear to be meaningfully explained by risky alcohol consumption though risky alcohol consumption remained an important factor to consider alongside psychological distress.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".