Predictors of Immune Fitness and the Alcohol Hangover: Survey Data from UK and Irish Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Immune fitness is defined as the capacity of the body to respond to health challenges (such as infections) by activating an appropriate immune response to promote health and prevent and resolve disease, which is essential for improving quality of life. Thus, immune fitness plays an essential role in health, and reduced immune fitness may be an important signal of increased susceptibility for disease. Lifestyle factors such as increased levels of alcohol consumption have been shown to negatively impact immune fitness. The alcohol hangover is the most frequently reported negative consequence of alcohol consumption and is defined as the combination of negative mental and physical symptoms, which can be experienced after a single episode of alcohol consumption, starting when blood alcohol concentration (BAC) approaches zero. Significant correlations have been reported between hangover severity and both immune fitness and biomarkers of systemic inflammation. The concepts of immune fitness and alcohol hangover are further linked by the fact that the inflammatory response to alcohol consumption plays an important role in the pathology of the alcohol hangover. Moreover, immune fitness has been related to the susceptibility of experiencing hangovers per se. It is therefore important to investigate the interrelationship between immune fitness and the alcohol hangover, and to identify possible predictor variables of both constructs. This data descriptor article describes a study that was conducted with adults living in the UK or Ireland, evaluating possible correlates and predictors of immune fitness and the alcohol hangover. Data on mood, personality, mental resilience, pain catastrophizing, and sleep were collected from n = 1178 participants through an online survey. Herein, the survey and corresponding dataset are described.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".