MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416773937 · doi:10.1080/15502783.2025.2579815

Caffeine consumption patterns, motivations, and adverse effects among Brazilian esports players: a cross-sectional study

2025· article· en· W4416773937 on OpenAlex
Ellis Wollis Malta Abhulime, Heloísa C. Santo André, Júlia Formagio, Bryan Saunders, Fabiana Braga Benatti

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCoffee research and impacts
Canadian institutionsNutrasource
FundersConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo
KeywordsCaffeineAdverse effectConsumption (sociology)Clinical nutritionPublic health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Electronic sports (esports) are a growing global phenomenon engaging millions of competitive players worldwide. Caffeine is a widely used compound for individuals seeking cognitive enhancement. However, evidence on consumption patterns, motivations, and safety in esports remains limited. We aimed to describe daily caffeine intake among Brazilian esports players and examine associations with competitive level, gaming habits, and adverse effects.Methods Cross-sectional study of 181 Brazilian esports players. A 64-item questionnaire captured demographics, gaming habits, and caffeine intake from all dietary sources. We compared amateurs vs semi-professional/professional players and performance-motivated vs other motivations, and examined dose-response using intake categories (≤100, 101–300, 301–600, >600 mg/day) and correlations for continuous variables.Results Median 168 mg/day (IQR 52–402; mean 280 ± 316); coffee was the main source (72.2% of total), and 55.8% consumed energy drinks, contributing 14.0% of intake. Overall, 25.7% exceeded 400 mg/day (46/179); intake did not differ between competitive levels (Amateur 172 vs Semi-Pro/Pro 121 mg/day; p = 0.387). No correlation with gaming hours (ρ = 0.068; p = 0.369). Under the primary positivity rule (≥“occasional”), adverse effects were common among respondents with symptom frequency data: any adverse effect 76.5%, insomnia 45.2%, tachycardia 29.1%, stomach pain 45.5%, tremors 23.7%. Linear trend tests across dose categories were not significant (any 0.822; insomnia 0.530; tachycardia 0.905; stomach pain 0.409; tremors 0.877), and per-category effect sizes were small (r-trend ≈ 0.01–0.08; OR per +1 category ≈ 0.89–1.16). Comparing >300 vs ≤300 mg/day for any adverse effect yielded OR 1.38 (95% CI 0.56–3.45). Performance-motivated players (12.6%) consumed more (+89 mg/day; p < 0.001). Using caffeine to combat fatigue (56.0%) was associated with higher insomnia (OR 2.50; 95% CI 1.37–4.55; q = 0.004). Notably, insomnia was common (45.2%), underscoring applied relevance.Conclusions Brazilian esports players show moderate caffeine intake, mainly from coffee. Adverse effects were common, although linear dose-response across intake categories was not observed; the observed fatigue-caffeine cycle highlights the need for practical guidance on timing and source awareness, alongside sleep-hygiene strategies, to support sustainable performance.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.338

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.313 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it