Alcohol zero: the end, the beginning of the end, or just the end of the beginning?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alcohol drinks, especially wine, have been described since 6,000 B.C. For many years in modern medicine, wine in moderation has been considered healthy for cardiovascular prevention, i.e., recommended by nutrition committees. Some regional guidelines still recommend one to two standard drinks per day. By the very recent (January 2023), World Health Organization and Canadian Guidance on alcohol emphasize that any alcoholic drink is hazardous to the health and the safe amount is zero. The risk starts with every single drop. It was also nicely summarized in the manuscript “Alcohol-dose question and the weakest link in a chemical interplay” (Explor Cardiol. 2023;1:15–25. doi: 10.37349/ec.2023.00003) especially from the standpoint of a researcher in the cardiovascular arena. The newest recommendations are based on observational studies and their meta-analysis, therefore establishing associations, pointing out that alcohol may somewhat prevent cardiovascular diseases and diabetes type 2, but with a significant increase in non-cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, especially cancers. Previous recommendations, therefore, may be obsolete as they were based on studies where abstainers from alcoholic beverages had inherent higher risks. The current controversy with conflicting guidelines for alcoholic beverage consumption in the era of precision medicine may stimulate more fundamental investigations up to genetic ones and find the cause-effect relations. In the era of precision medicine, it may come closer to discovering the causes of cancers and many other diseases, enabling predictions of reactions to alcoholic beverages by each person, not just in the population.
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 | 0.006 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.008 |
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".