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 or thermoregulation and energy metabolism in drinkers.

6 drinking, especially among moderate lifetime drinkers.

7 dentified at higher concentrations in coffee drinkers.

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

9 develops in only a small proportion of heavy drinkers.

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

11 est increase in adenocarcinoma among heavier drinkers.

12 e as diagnostic tools to help classify risky drinkers.

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

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

15 s and cortisol reactivity, relative to light drinkers.

16 at was not observed in nondependent moderate drinkers.

17 fying 18 escalating drinkers and 18 constant drinkers.

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

19 We excluded former drinkers.

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

21 with the greatest effects noted for harmful drinkers.

22 Results were similar after excluding binge drinkers.

23 ral correlates of alcohol demand among heavy drinkers.

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

25 59.7]) compared with uninfected nonhazardous drinkers.

26 n heavy drinkers compared with that in light drinkers.

27 lcohol-related dysfunction score among these drinkers.

28 bules relative to youths who remained no/low drinkers.

29 reaction times in heavy compared with light drinkers.

30 the risk of death was increased among coffee drinkers.

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

32 ive and cortisol responses in heavy vs light drinkers.

33 gher in at-risk drinkers than in non-at-risk drinkers.

34 without hepatitis B or C, who were not heavy drinkers.

35 e-standardized prevalence of heavy and binge drinkers.

36 cy to alcohol misuse in punishment-sensitive drinkers.

37 three diseases than non-drinkers or heavier drinkers.

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

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

40 nd psychosocial markers could identify binge drinkers.

41 [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-

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

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

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

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

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

47 A total of 48 non-treatment-seeking heavy drinkers (16 women) who met DSM-IV criteria for alcohol

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

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

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

51 tages 2-3 acute kidney injury in 320 at-risk drinkers (29%) and 787 non-at-risk drinkers (71%) at adm

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

53 g density led to a lower population of light drinkers (42.2% at baseline vs. 38.1% at the 50th percen

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

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

56 0 at-risk drinkers (29%) and 787 non-at-risk drinkers (71%) at admission to the ICU, within 4 days af

57 Among current (weekly) drinkers, AAI <18.1 years and drinking duration >30.0 ye

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

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

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

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

62 centage of heavy episodic drinking and total drinkers among population inversely correlated with temp

63 ation with liters of alcohol consumption and drinkers among population once adjusted by potential con

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

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

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

67 Among survivors, 22% of at-risk drinkers and 9% of non-at-risk drinkers were discharged

68 Among them, 433 were moderate drinkers and 90 were ADH1B*2 carriers.

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

70 The pathways associated with both binge drinkers and AD are also analyzed.

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

72 ng consumption of alcohol (ever versus never drinkers and drinks per week), beverages (coffee, green

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

74 Usual alcohol intake in current drinkers and genotype-predicted alcohol intake in all me

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

93 er plasma ALT among the most obese, in heavy drinkers, and in individuals carrying three or four stea

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

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

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

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

98 more drinks per day vs abstainers and light drinkers as well as smoking (OR, 4.59; 95% CI, 2.91-7.25

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

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

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

102 Drinkers at risk for alcohol dependence among the 43 093

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

104 oking status; and, alcohol intake (high-risk drinker based on standard drink units) with having a poo

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

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

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

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

109 12-month DSM-IV AUD among 12-month high-risk drinkers between 2001-2002 and 2012-2013.

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

111 ) shows that high levels of ethanol in binge drinkers cause a shift in the microbiome that leads to t

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

113 c currents (sEPSC) was elevated in abstinent drinkers compared with controls, indicating increased pr

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

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

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

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

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

119 eath, and developing tools to identify risky drinkers could mitigate its damage.

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

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

122 orted alcohol consumption variables, current drinker, defined as any recurrent drinking behavior, and

123 any recurrent drinking behavior, and regular drinker, defined as the subset of current drinkers who c

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

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

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

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

128 CeA neurons from abstinent drinkers displayed an elevated baseline spontaneous inhi

129 Escalating drinkers displayed greater impulsivity/compulsivity-rela

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

131 Twelve heavy drinkers during three identical visits completed an alco

132 148 subjects were enrolled (97 excessive drinkers (ED) and 51 controls).

133 Drinkers exhibited accelerated gray matter decline in an

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

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

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

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

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

139 12-month DSM-IV AUD among 12-month high-risk drinkers from 46.5% (95% CI, 44.3%-48.7%) to 54.5% (95%

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

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

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

143 Alcohol drinkers had a lower risk of lethal prostate cancer (any

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

151 5-year interval in at-risk young adult heavy drinkers (HD) and light drinker control subjects.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

165 rmal growth trajectories derived from no/low drinkers indicated that gray matter volumes of lobules V

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

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

168 hol intake), and if the patient is an active drinker, liver elastography can be repeated after a comp

169 and if the patient is an active drinker, liver elastography can be repeated after a comp

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

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

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

173 Forty-four (14 F) nontreatment seeking heavy drinkers meeting criteria for AUD were enrolled.

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

175 pplied a novel memory task in which moderate drinkers (N = 30) and treatment-seeking individuals with

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

177 Community-recruited healthy young social drinkers (N = 58) completed four laboratory sessions in

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

185 he risk of CVD was elevated for nondrinkers, drinkers of decaffeinated coffee, and those who reported

186 ell by 3%, with the greatest effect on heavy drinkers of low-cost alcohol products.

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

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

189 d lower risks of all three diseases than non-drinkers or heavier drinkers.

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

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

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

193 ed item memory in AUD compared with moderate drinkers (p < 0.001), but enhanced associative memory fo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

203 Seventy nondependent female and male drinkers performed a reward go/no-go task with approxima

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

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

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

207 (95% CI, 0.34 to 0.99), compared with never drinkers (Ptrend = .002).

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

209 Eleven healthy social drinkers received two intravenous ethanol infusions that

210 a large biopsy-controlled study of excessive drinkers recruited from primary and secondary care, to e

211 0 carriers) were non-treatment-seeking heavy drinkers recruited from the community.

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

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

214 not (RR 0.69, 0.62-0.77; p<0.0001; wine-only drinkers RR 0.69, 0.56-0.85; all other drinkers RR 0.72,

215 -only drinkers RR 0.69, 0.56-0.85; all other drinkers RR 0.72, 0.63-0.82).

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

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

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

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

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

221 Male and female drinkers showed similar patterns of development trajecto

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

223 rinking in punishment-sensitive nondependent drinkers.SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT Many people drink to all

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

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

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

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

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

229 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

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

231 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(-

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

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

234 r PVN neurons in both controls and abstinent drinkers, suggesting a lack of tolerance to acute ethano

235 of sIPSCs in controls, but not in abstinent drinkers, suggesting a tolerance to ethanol-enhanced GAB

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

237 0.0001) was significantly higher in at-risk drinkers than in non-at-risk drinkers.

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

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

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

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

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

243 , 1.24 for current drinkers, and 1.33 for ex-drinkers (trend P = 0.031).

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

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

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

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

248 d in a fluoridated area for nonbottled water drinkers was 0.51 (95% CI, 0.31 to 0.84; P = 0.008).

249 omparison, the adjusted OR for bottled water drinkers was 1.86 (95% CI, 0.54 to 6.41; P = 0.326).

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

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

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

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

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

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

256 2% of at-risk drinkers and 9% of non-at-risk drinkers were discharged with stages 2-3 acute kidney in

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

266 ome, self-rated "very bad" health, and never drinkers, were statistically significant in predicting l

267 etamine is able to disrupt MRMs in hazardous drinkers when administered immediately after their retri

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

269 ce imaging scans, 328 youths remained no/low drinkers, whereas 220 initiated substantial drinking aft

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

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

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

273 ar drinker, defined as the subset of current drinkers who consume at least 2 drinks per week, were co

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

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

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

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

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

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

280 predictions revealed that those young social drinkers who were classified as abstainers showed a grea

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

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

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

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

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

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

287 Alcohol abstinence in drinkers with atrial fibrillation.

288 ol reduced arrhythmia recurrences in regular drinkers with atrial fibrillation.

289 ucing alcohol drinking and craving among FHP drinkers with beneficial effects that appear to carryove

290 driving negative health outcomes among risky drinkers with HIV may include immunosenescence.

291 enotypes in this exploratory study of recent drinkers with HIV.

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 Fifty-six, non-treatment-seeking heavy drinkers, with alcohol dependence and a positive family

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