外刊阅读20240806｜00后开始迷上微醺感

+

上期划线句答案

+

本期内容

◆

双语阅读

Studies that suggest alcohol can be good for you in moderation – and even extend your life – may be based on flawed research methods, according to a team of scientists bent on setting this ubiquitous misconception straight. This paper is the most recent installment in what is becoming something of a saga between the University of Victoria-led team and the International Scientific Forum on Alcohol Research (ISFAR).

Psychologist Tim Stockwell and epidemiologist Jinhui Zhao, both from the University of Victoria in Canada, led the most recent study to verify whether the claim – and the research supporting it – holds up under scrutiny. Their meta-analysis cross-checks 107 scientific studies that investigated the association between alcohol consumption and the risk of death from any cause. That array includes data on a total of 4,838,825 participants and 425,564 recorded deaths.

They split the studies by quality, for comparison, to illuminate where bias may have led data interpretation astray . 'High quality' studies were defined as those in which the average age of the cohort was 55 years or younger, where follow-up extended beyond age 55, and where former or occasional drinkers were excluded from the reference group.

This stratification weeded out studies affected by ' abstainer bias', where a person's inclusion in the control group because they abstain from drinking alcohol doesn't take into account their lifetime drinking habits. The risk is that people affected by long-term drinking, who have quit for health reasons, can be included in the control group, even though they are not representative beacons of long-term abstinence . And comparing the longevity of a one-wine-a-day drinker with that of a now-sober but long-term alcoholic isn't the same as comparing that moderate drinker with someone who never touches the stuff.