ライフサイエンスコーパス: drinker

1 alcohol use analysis was confined to problem drinkers).

2 .03-0.06] for three levels in very-high-risk drinkers).

3 ohol when avoiding stigmatised identity as a drinker.

4 in the probability of being a heavy alcohol drinker.

5 We excluded former drinkers.

6 f 200 mg to reduce heavy drinking in problem drinkers.

7 with the greatest effects noted for harmful drinkers.

8 Results were similar after excluding binge drinkers.

9 ral correlates of alcohol demand among heavy drinkers.

10 tentials in response to beer cues, in social drinkers.

11 59.7]) compared with uninfected nonhazardous drinkers.

12 n heavy drinkers compared with that in light drinkers.

13 lcohol-related dysfunction score among these drinkers.

14 reaction times in heavy compared with light drinkers.

15 the risk of death was increased among coffee drinkers.

16 lower SVR rates in moderate, but not heavy, drinkers.

17 ive and cortisol responses in heavy vs light drinkers.

18 ation with fatal prostate cancer among heavy drinkers.

19 and 0.95 (95% CI: 0.82 to 1.10) among heavy drinkers.

20 pe 2 diabetes among initially rare and light drinkers.

21 lity-of-life outcomes for different types of drinkers.

22 ng effects on consumer spending for moderate drinkers.

23 drinkers, and women were predominantly wine drinkers.

24 .1%) former drinkers, and 1390 (20.5%) never drinkers.

25 ved in 14.3% of nondrinkers and 8.6% of wine drinkers.

26 3.2% of nondrinkers and 0.4% of modest wine drinkers.

27 l have different health outcomes than social drinkers.

28 n (RR = 1.30; 95% CI: 1.07 to 1.58) than non-drinkers.

29 or thermoregulation and energy metabolism in drinkers.

30 drinking, especially among moderate lifetime drinkers.

31 dentified at higher concentrations in coffee drinkers.

32 isk drinkers, and most (90.2%) were low-risk drinkers.

33 develops in only a small proportion of heavy drinkers.

34 ed to those who were never smokers and never drinkers.

35 est increase in adenocarcinoma among heavier drinkers.

36 drinks consumed per week (drinks/week) among drinkers.

37 n the United States are reported to be heavy drinkers.

38 R of 0.63 in women, compared with female non-drinkers.

39 s and cortisol reactivity, relative to light drinkers.

40 fying 18 escalating drinkers and 18 constant drinkers.

41 s risk was more evident in subgroups of ever drinkers.

42 Likewise, compared with stable light drinkers (0-4.9 g/day), light drinkers who increased the

43 t significantly greater risk than very light drinkers (0.1-4.9 g/day).

44 [0.05-0.10] for three levels) and high-risk drinkers (0.64 [0.54-0.75] for one level and 0.12 [0.09-

45 ers, 0.69 (95% CI: 0.59 to 0.82) among light drinkers, 0.62 (95% CI: 0.50 to 0.77) among moderate dri

46 rs, 1.02 (95% CI: 0.94 to 1.11) among former drinkers, 0.69 (95% CI: 0.59 to 0.82) among light drinke

47 (499 cases, 527 controls), and for wine-only drinkers (1,021 cases, 2,460 controls), with alcohol nev

48 1 cases, 2,460 controls), with alcohol never drinkers (1,124 cases, 3,487 controls) used as a common

49 t the offspring of mothers who were moderate drinkers (1-6 units alcohol per week during pregnancy (p

50 CI]: 0.88 to 1.02) among lifetime infrequent drinkers, 1.02 (95% CI: 0.94 to 1.11) among former drink

51 h never drinkers, the HRs were 1.25 for ever drinkers, 1.24 for current drinkers, and 1.33 for ex-dri

52 We identified 1864 current drinkers (1126 men and 738 women) who completed two 24-h

53 at-risk drinkers (24%) versus 61 non-at-risk drinkers (13%) died in the ICU (p = 0.0009 for the compa

54 h 18 males; 40+ years of age; smokers and/or drinkers (15+ cigarettes per day and/or 15+ units of alc

55 e subjects consisted of 3766 (55.5%) current drinkers, 1635 (24.1%) former drinkers, and 1390 (20.5%)

56 tion) of the respondents were very-high-risk drinkers, 2.5% were high-risk drinkers, 4.8% were modera

57 of alcohol consumption were defined: 1) non-drinker; 2) </=1 glass/week; 3) >1 glass/week and </=1 g

58 More specifically, 50 at-risk drinkers (24%) versus 61 non-at-risk drinkers (13%) died

59 very-high-risk drinkers, 2.5% were high-risk drinkers, 4.8% were moderate-risk drinkers, and most (90

60 y (858 cases, 986 controls), for liquor-only drinkers (499 cases, 527 controls), and for wine-only dr

61 or heavy episodic intake vs never or former drinker; 5.8%, 3.4-9.7 for current alcohol drinker vs ne

62 ow-level drinkers who never binged, moderate drinkers (60-229 drinks/year) who binged had a higher ri

63 , the uninsured (65%), self-reported alcohol drinkers (77%), and illicit drug users (90%).

64 ht patients (33%) were identified as at-risk drinkers according to the National Institute on Alcohol

65 at Wave 2, particularly among very-high-risk drinkers (adjusted odds ratios 0.27 [95% CI 0.18-0.41] f

66 Young adult drinkers aged 18-24 years are especially affected by pol

67 The study population was 1,705 male drinkers aged 25-54 years resident in the city of Izhevs

68 ticipants were light (N=36) and heavy (N=56) drinkers, aged 18-20 years.

69 d after follow-up, identifying 18 escalating drinkers and 18 constant drinkers.

70 We further assessed 32 young binge drinkers and 36 abstinent subjects with alcohol use diso

71 Participants were 156 individuals, 86 heavy drinkers and 70 light drinkers, undergoing an initial or

72 Clusters of drinkers and abstainers were present in the network at a

73 pecialty treatment) by 3 months in dependent drinkers and change in the mean number of drinks per day

74 approximately 12.9 million people are heavy drinkers and chronic abuse of alcohol is known to increa

75 ncluded 6,333 cases, while analysis of never drinkers and consumers of < or =10 drinks/day included 8

76 -directed interventions delivered to at-risk drinkers and enforced legislative measures are also effe

77 less or among men who were already moderate drinkers and increased their intake.

78 ubthalamic connectivity differentiates binge drinkers and individuals with alcohol use disorders from

79 n is effective in primary care for hazardous drinkers and individuals with mild disorders.

80 Patients who are alcohol drinkers and long-term smokers before diagnosis have a s

81 Ongoing alcohol drinkers and morbidly obese patients, with minimal hepat

82 scribed differences in trajectories of heavy drinkers and nondrinkers over age; secondary analyses co

83 ng a decreased risk compared with both heavy drinkers and nondrinkers.

84 of individuals who were predominantly reward drinkers and received naltrexone vs placebo had an 83% r

85 rms of reducing mortality among the heaviest drinkers and reducing alcohol-related health inequalitie

86 inical applicability: individuals are reward drinkers and respond to naltrexone if their reward score

87 HIV diagnosis, in addition to self-reported drinkers and smokers as being at higher risk of non-comp

88 n, with a strong association between alcohol drinkers and smoking (chi(2) 27.08; p<0.001).

89 ung blacks had the highest percentage of SSB drinkers and the highest per capita consumption compared

90 Psi increases drinking in low, but not high, drinkers and this increase is blocked by comicroinjectio

91 to liver disease particularly among alcohol drinkers and those with hepatic steatosis.

92 isease mortality were stronger among alcohol drinkers and those with hepatic steatosis.

93 sthoracic echocardiography, excluding former drinkers and those with significant valvular disease.

94 r current alcohol drinker vs never or former drinker), and diabetes mellitus (1.16, 1.05-1.30; 3.9%,

95 ge drinking among those who were never binge drinkers, and (3) the onset of hazardous drinking among

96 , 0.62 (95% CI: 0.50 to 0.77) among moderate drinkers, and 0.95 (95% CI: 0.82 to 1.10) among heavy dr

97 ere 1.25 for ever drinkers, 1.24 for current drinkers, and 1.33 for ex-drinkers (trend P = 0.031).

98 55.5%) current drinkers, 1635 (24.1%) former drinkers, and 1390 (20.5%) never drinkers.

99 eiotropy by showing null effects in male non-drinkers, and 4) illustrates a way to measure population

100 ularly pronounced in never smokers and never drinkers, and for oropharyngeal as opposed to oral cavit

101 high-risk drinkers, 4.8% were moderate-risk drinkers, and most (90.2%) were low-risk drinkers.

102 , particularly for males, ever-smokers, ever-drinkers, and those with age > 60, or BMI < 25.0.

103 Men were predominantly beer drinkers, and women were predominantly wine drinkers.

104 uming 7 or more drinks per week versus never drinkers as follows: for estrogen receptor-positive (ER+

105 the reference group and quartiles of current drinkers as ordinal groups with higher values.

106 Ac core was significantly lower in the heavy drinkers, as compared with control subjects.

107 king and other potential confounders, coffee drinkers, as compared with nondrinkers, had lower hazard

108 However, women who were former alcohol drinkers at baseline were at elevated risk of overall B-

109 Drinkers at risk for alcohol dependence among the 43 093

110 DA and lower DOPAC/DA ratios among the heavy drinkers at the same time point.

111 rlying response inhibition among college-age drinkers based on their drinking patterns, despite colle

112 this study was to assess whether young binge drinkers (BD) have impaired macrovascular and microvascu

113 Here, we focus on binge drinkers (BD), characterized by repeated episodes of hea

114 Compared with non-bingers (NBD; n=22), binge drinkers (BD, n=22) showed robust impairments in attenti

115 12-month DSM-IV AUD among 12-month high-risk drinkers between 2001-2002 and 2012-2013.

116 to selective formation of social ties among drinkers but also seem to reflect interpersonal influenc

117 ibits GABA(A) receptor mediated IPSCs in low drinkers, but not in high drinkers or naive animals, mos

118 test behavioural changes occurred in harmful drinkers (change in consumption of -3.7% or -138.2 units

119 type showed an inverse association for wine drinkers compared with nondrinkers (>/=7 drinks of wine

120 isk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) in alcohol drinkers compared with nondrinkers, the dose-response re

121 transport and oxidation are faster in heavy drinkers compared with that in light drinkers.

122 tal of 7,211 nondrinkers and 945 modest wine drinkers comprised the study sample.

123 s while the same adaptation metric for heavy drinkers (consuming greater than 60 drinks per month) wa

124 sk young adult heavy drinkers (HD) and light drinker control subjects.

125 detoxified patients (SDTx; n=17), and social drinker controls (n=31).

126 ofessional/managerial occupations (for heavy drinkers: current tax increase, -1.3%; value-based tax,

127 controlled trial, we recruited male harmful drinkers defined by an Alcohol Use Disorders Identificat

128 opposed identities of normal or problematic drinker, defined by propriety rather than health conside

129 their drinking patterns, despite college-age drinkers demonstrating high rates of alcohol-use disorde

130 est compared with the lowest categories of a drinker dietary pattern (OR = 1.21; 95% CI: 1.04, 1.41;

131 We determined whether the diets of drinkers differ on drinking compared with nondrinking da

132 Escalating drinkers displayed greater impulsivity/compulsivity-rela

133 ombination as controls (CTR), smokers (SMK), drinkers (DRN), smoking-and-drinking subjects (SAD), mar

134 148 subjects were enrolled (97 excessive drinkers (ED) and 51 controls).

135 The higher risk among former drinkers emphasizes the importance of classifying both c

136 During fMRI No-Go correct rejections, light drinkers exhibited greater BOLD response than did heavy

137 of the 1-year follow-up period, the at-risk drinkers exhibited poorer survival than the non-at-risk

138 n with coronary heart disease, with moderate drinkers exhibiting a decreased risk compared with both

139 reward sensitivity and stimulation in heavy drinkers exhibiting AUD progression in early mid-adultho

140 he case of Mr E, an older, moderate to heavy drinker experiencing memory difficulty, the diagnostic c

141 Study, a population-based cohort, all coffee drinkers for whom genome-wide association data were avai

142 Among current alcohol drinkers, for all-site cancer mortality, higher-quantity

143 12-month DSM-IV AUD among 12-month high-risk drinkers from 46.5% (95% CI, 44.3%-48.7%) to 54.5% (95%

144 distinguished former drinkers or infrequent drinkers from consistent nondrinkers.

145 Serum metabolites can distinguish coffee drinkers from nondrinkers; some caffeine-related metabol

146 Among the heavy drinkers, greater positive effects and lower sedative ef

147 dred fifty-eight women (51%) were considered drinkers (> 0.5 g/d of alcohol), and the majority drank

148 fidence interval: 1.03, 2.01) and very heavy drinkers (>/=60 g/day; odds ratio = 1.44, 95% confidence

149 Compared to nondrinkers, daily alcohol drinkers had a strong dose-dependent positive associatio

150 Heavy drinkers had approximately 2-fold more brain acetate rel

151 Offspring of non-drinkers had higher AA on average but this difference ap

152 Compared with abstainers, moderate alcohol drinkers had higher plasma folate concentrations and hig

153 Higher proportions of drinkers had obesity, diabetes, and metabolic syndrome c

154 These mostly moderate drinkers had poorer diets on drinking days.

155 ients with these disorders are heavy alcohol drinkers, has revolutionized our concept of these diseas

156 ological studies suggest that regular coffee drinkers have reduced risks of mortality, both CV and al

157 5-year interval in at-risk young adult heavy drinkers (HD) and light drinker control subjects.

158 Heavy drinkers (HD, N=16, 16 males) and normal controls (NM, N

159 given with no stimulation (NS), in 25 heavy drinkers (HDs) and 23 healthy controls, each of whom und

160 response to alcohol between light and heavy drinkers (HDs), however, have yielded inconsistent resul

161 cts who are both current smokers and current drinkers (HR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.03-2.05) were associated w

162 ciated with reduced odds of being an alcohol drinker in all groups, but prevalence of alcohol consump

163 azards for the composite outcome for current drinkers in HICs and UMICs (HR 0.84 [0.77-0.92]), but no

164 hibited greater BOLD response than did heavy drinkers in left supplementary motor area (SMA), bilater

165 nit pricing, -7.8%) and lesser impacts among drinkers in professional/managerial occupations (for hea

166 UC was better than EUC alone was for harmful drinkers in routine primary health-care settings, and mi

167 UC was better than EUC alone was for harmful drinkers in routine primary health-care settings, and mi

168 ould have greater effects on mortality among drinkers in routine/manual occupations (particularly for

169 and, from a public health perspective, heavy drinkers in routine/manual occupations are a key group a

170 ascular events and stroke observed among tea drinkers in the different studies.

171 (P = 0.001), and daily SSB consumption among drinkers increased by 6 oz (P < 0.001).

172 the survey day, the percentage of adult SSB drinkers increased from 58% to 63% (P < 0.001), per capi

173 Binge drinking, even among otherwise light drinkers, increases cardiovascular events and mortality.

174 zard ratio [HR] 0.78; 95% CI: 0.60-1.00) and drinkers initially consuming <15 g/day (HR 0.89; 95% CI:

175 re, cortisol response, Timeline Follow-Back, Drinker Inventory of Consequences-Recent, and DSM-IV alc

176 We further showed that binge drinkers, like those with alcohol use disorders, had ele

177 modification; for example, relative to light drinkers living in advantaged areas, the risk of alcohol

178 ntervals with the referent group being light drinkers (<1 drink/day).

179 Relative to low-level drinkers (<60 drinks/year), hazard ratios were increased

180 These findings suggest that heavy alcohol drinkers may have dysfunction in brain regions underlyin

181 Nectar drinkers must feed quickly and efficiently due to the th

182 hy (n = 18), Western/unhealthy (n = 17), and drinker (n = 4) dietary patterns.

183 alographic (EEG) data from a group of social drinkers (n = 31) who performed a PIT task in which they

184 Healthy social drinkers (N=22) participated in both alcohol (0.6 g/kg e

185 abstinence and relative to non-smoking light drinkers, non-smoking alcohol-dependent individuals had

186 lf-reported information: any alcohol intake (drinker/non-drinker status) and the regular quantity of

187 nce: porcine cadaveric mesh odds ratio 5.18, drinker odds ratio 3.62, African American odds ratio 0.2

188 ngth of stay odds ratio 1.11; complications: drinker odds ratio 6.52, porcine cadaveric mesh odds rat

189 dardized consumption frequency for beer-only drinkers (odds ratios (ORs) = 1.6, 1.9, 2.2, and 5.4 for

190 n self-reported alcohol intake: nondrinkers, drinkers of </=7, >/=7 to 14, and >/=14 drinks per week.

191 Compared with current drinkers of <1 drink/week (12 g alcohol/drink), the mult

192 = 0.02) with ORs for diabetes among moderate drinkers of 0.44 (95% CI 0.21-0.94) in ADH1C*1 homozygot

193 Compared with nondrinkers, drinkers of 4-5 cups coffee/d (HR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.75, 0

194 For drinkers of more than three alcoholic beverages per day,

195 nsumption levels were comparable to those of drinkers of other beverage types (ORs = 1.1, 1.2, 1.9, a

196 Results were similar to those overall for drinkers of predominantly caffeinated coffee.

197 Because harmful drinkers on low incomes purchase more alcohol at less th

198 751 (51%) cases were classed as problem drinkers or drank non-beverage alcohol, compared with 19

199 retrospective, and few distinguished former drinkers or infrequent drinkers from consistent nondrink

200 iated IPSCs in low drinkers, but not in high drinkers or naive animals, most likely through activatio

201 oned to heavy drinking and 59 remained light drinkers or nondrinkers over roughly 3.5 years.

202 Self-reported alcohol drinkers (OR 4.05; 95% C.I. 1.89-9.06) also had a four-f

203 (ie, downward social selection for high-risk drinkers), or a greater risk of harm in individuals of l

204 e classified as either injection drug users, drinkers, or nonusers based on questionnaire results.

205 ectively; P(trend) < 0.0001) and liquor-only drinkers (ORs = 1.6, 1.5, 2.3, and 3.6; P < 0.0001).

206 hibited poorer survival than the non-at-risk drinkers (p = 0.0004, as determined by the log-rank test

207 were twice as likely to have IBS than never-drinkers (P< 0.01).

208 Compared with non-coffee drinkers, participants who consumed 2-3 cups coffee per

209 One hundred four young heavy social drinkers participated in a within-subject, double-blind,

210 cted in terms of consumption (-3.8 units per drinker per year for the lowest income quintile vs 0.8 u

211 tion in consumption of 1.6% (-11.7 units per drinker per year) in our model.

212 t income quintile (-7.6% or -299.8 units per drinker per year, with a decrease in spending of pound34

213 in consumption of -3.7% or -138.2 units per drinker per year, with a decrease in spending of pound4.

214 Thirty-six young adult drinkers performed a Go/No-Go task during fMRI, complete

215 stinence is often the aim of treatment, many drinkers prefer drinking reduction goals.

216 h histological parameters (n = 106) in heavy drinkers primarily admitted for alcohol withdrawal befor

217 ith individuals who are predominantly reward drinkers produces significantly higher effect sizes than

218 (95% CI, 0.34 to 0.99), compared with never drinkers (Ptrend = .002).

219 design, 40 healthy moderate-to-heavy social drinkers received either no alcohol (placebo), 0.4 g/kg

220 Eleven healthy social drinkers received two intravenous ethanol infusions that

221 0 carriers) were non-treatment-seeking heavy drinkers recruited from the community.

222 ld affect harmful use of alcohol: by current drinkers replacing standard alcoholic beverages with sim

223 Drinkers reported 1-21 (men) or 1-14 (women) standard dr

224 er risk for clinical AL progression than non-drinkers (RR = 0.52; 95% CI: 0.30 to 0.89), whereas thos

225 rinking >1 glass/day was 34% higher than non-drinkers (RR = 1.34; 95% CI: 1.09 to 1.64).

226 n of 0.08% or placebo between HDs and social drinkers (SDs).

227 esults also suggest that smokers and alcohol drinkers should be identified and targeted for adherence

228 Lifetime heavy drinkers showed poorer overall (aHR: 1.37; 95% CI: 1.06,

229 Male and female drinkers showed similar patterns of development trajecto

230 netic resonance imaging in heavy social male drinkers showed that intranasal oxytocin (24 IU) decreas

231 ears; 54% black; 46% female), 332 (58%) were drinkers; significantly higher proportions of drinkers w

232 Patients were categorized as never, ex-drinkers/smokers or current drinkers/smokers.

233 zed as never, ex-drinkers/smokers or current drinkers/smokers.

234 on, and related health harms and costs, with drinker spending increases targeting those who incur mos

235 e policy on moderate, hazardous, and harmful drinkers, split into three socioeconomic groups (living

236 olymorphism (SNP) rs671 in ALDH2 and alcohol drinker status (odd ratio (OR)=0.40, P=2.28 x 10(-72)) i

237 on phenotypes (OR=0.79, P=2.47 x 10(-20) for drinker status and beta=-0.19, P=1.91 x 10(-35) for drin

238 information: any alcohol intake (drinker/non-drinker status) and the regular quantity of drinks consu

239 drinks/week and OR=0.96, P=4.08 x 10(-5) for drinker status), and rs4665985 (beta=0.04, P=2.26 x 10(-

240 or drinks/week and OR=1.04, P=5 x 10(-4) for drinker status), respectively.

241 tiator model should be revised: in high-risk drinkers, stimulant and rewarding alcohol responses even

242 the quantity of liquid consumed; by current drinkers switching to no alcohol alternatives for part o

243 rinking onset that ultimately became heavier drinkers than monkeys with older drinking onset.

244 Despite that, for heavy beer drinkers, the contribution of this commodity to the dail

245 Compared with never drinkers, the HRs were 1.25 for ever drinkers, 1.24 for

246 Among wine-only drinkers, the odds ratios for moderate levels of consump

247 Compared with non-coffee drinkers, those who drank 2-3 cups per day had a 38% red

248 Compared to non-daily coffee drinkers, those who drank two or more cups per day had a

249 , 1.24 for current drinkers, and 1.33 for ex-drinkers (trend P = 0.031).

250 individuals, 86 heavy drinkers and 70 light drinkers, undergoing an initial oral alcohol challenge t

251 sode on CB1R availability, 20 healthy social drinkers underwent [(18)F]MK-9470-positron emission tomo

252 inence from alcohol and 22 non-smoking light drinkers using a 1.5 T magnetic resonance scanner.

253 IL-4 production was lower in active drinkers versus abstinents, and IL-17 production was hig

254 r drinker; 5.8%, 3.4-9.7 for current alcohol drinker vs never or former drinker), and diabetes mellit

255 never, former, light, moderate, and at-risk drinkers was 25.1%, 31.8%, 20.9%, 22.2%, and 18.8%, resp

256 nges most of the excess mortality in heavier drinkers was from external causes or the eight disease g

257 ttributable admission or death for excessive drinkers was increased (hazard ratio 6.12, 95% CI 4.45-8

258 r abstained or were non-problematic beverage drinkers, was 6.0 (95% CI 5.0-7.3) after adjustment for

259 Compared with never drinkers, we identified significantly reduced hazards fo

260 However, coffee drinkers were also more likely to smoke, and, after adju

261 or drink, only patients who both smokers and drinkers were associated with reduced survival from PDAC

262 Non-treatment-seeking heavy drinkers were enrolled in the study.

263 Moderate drinkers were least affected in terms of consumption (-3

264 Irrespective of income, moderate drinkers were little affected by a minimum unit price of

265 Fifty-six overweight and moderate-heavy drinkers were prospectively stratified by genotype (29 A

266 Eighty-eight social drinkers were randomly allocated to either an alcohol se

267 uses of death in the at-risk and non-at-risk drinkers were similar.

268 Impacts of price changes on moderate drinkers were small regardless of income or socioeconomi

269 ung (18-25 years) social binge and non-binge drinkers were tested for motor impulsivity and attention

270 Those who were ever alcohol drinkers were twice as likely to have IBS than never-dri

271 rinkers; significantly higher proportions of drinkers were white, male, and with higher levels of edu

272 e/manual occupations (particularly for heavy drinkers, where the estimated policy effects on mortalit

273 administered alcohol intravenously to social drinkers while brain response to visual threatening and

274 tain this level of effectiveness for harmful drinkers while reducing effects on consumer spending for

275 s on healthy controls (28.9+/-8.6) for light drinkers while the same adaptation metric for heavy drin

276 would facilitate the identification of heavy drinkers who are likely to respond well to topiramate tr

277 ss-sectional study included 159 young social drinkers who completed a laboratory session in which the

278 Moderate drinkers who consumed >/=5 drinks in 1 day at least mont

279 In current drinkers who consumed <1 drink (13 g alcohol)/wk, B vita

280 strong for regional disease and among women drinkers who consumed alcohol infrequently.

281 h stable light drinkers (0-4.9 g/day), light drinkers who increased their intake to moderate levels (

282 metabolic profile among abstainers and light drinkers who modestly increased their alcohol intake, co

283 Compared with low-level drinkers who never binged, moderate drinkers (60-229 dri

284 ed 110 healthy male habitual moderate coffee drinkers who refrained from drinking coffee on the day p

285 d cohort study, we included data from 22 005 drinkers who were interviewed in 2001-02 (Wave 1) and re

286 per day at least once per week, and 7 light drinkers, who consumed fewer than 2 drinks per week were

287 several prior studies did not exclude former drinkers, who may have changed alcohol consumption in re

288 Seven heavy drinkers, who regularly consumed at least 8 drinks per w

289 cacy and tolerability of topiramate in heavy drinkers whose treatment goal was to reduce drinking to

290 Individuals who are binge or chronic drinkers will have different health outcomes than social

291 nce characterizes T-cell responses in active drinkers with ARC, whereas IL-4 production prevails in a

292 ive to moderate drinking was found in former drinkers with lifetime alcohol problems.

293 oncerns exist about the potential effects on drinkers with low incomes.

294 patients aged 18 to 70 years who were heavy drinkers with severe biopsy-proven alcoholic hepatitis,

295 abstainers with the CC genotype or moderate drinkers with the CT genotype.

296 CI: 1.10, 1.70) survival than lifetime light drinkers (women: >0-12 g/d; men: >0-24 g/d).

297 ould eventually satisfy and attract more tea drinkers worldwide.

298 driven by negative reinforcement (ie, relief drinkers) would have a better treatment response to acam

299 driven by positive reinforcement (ie, reward drinkers) would have a better treatment response to nalt

300 m and reduced alcohol consumption and, among drinkers, would be expected to reduce fetal exposure to