Moderate alcohol consumption provides a net cardioprotective effect compared to abstention
Weak-link patterns
Brief §8's named failure modes, computed from this claim's own paper roles and status -- not a single weakness score. Patterns B and E aren't implemented yet (need dependency-graph machinery, docs/BASIC_ROADMAP.md Phase 11).
stored status is 'unknown_conflicting'
flagship 'Association of alcohol consumption with selected cardiovascular disease outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis' (1625 citations) vs 3 contradicting row(s) of 4 total (needs >=3 contradicting)
Open questions
Pattern G. Human-written, never generated -- deliberately no importance or priority score (docs/BASIC_ROADMAP.md's own precedent against inventing one, matching innovation_considerations).
Does the apparent cardioprotective effect of moderate alcohol consumption survive Mendelian-randomization-quality causal designs, or is it explained by the "sick quitter" confound in the original observational studies?
Motivated by: Pattern C (conflicting evidence) and Pattern F (highly-cited original, 3 later contradicting studies)
Evidence map
Position shows direction, circle area shows citation count. Click a paper for the reason its role was assigned.
Evidence dimensions
Eight independent 0–5 judgments, each with a written rationale. Deliberately never summed into one score.
Real evidence on both sides, but the methodologically stronger portion argues against a causal protective effect.
Enormous literature - decades of cohort studies plus multiple large genetic studies.
No qualifying same-paradigm independent replication exists in this set; this low score is itself the pilot's main finding.
Three materially different designs (bias-corrected cohort reanalysis; two independent Mendelian-randomization studies in different populations), all testing the same causal claim.
Why this status
The derivation rule, evaluated top to bottom, first match wins. This is the rule itself — not a confidence score standing in for one.
- 1Unknown — unexplored
4 paper rows (needs <3) and evidence_strength=2 (needs <=1); both required
- 2Unknown — conflicting evidencematched
(a) 0 failure vs 0 success rows -> no; (b) 0 review rows — opposite-verdict test is a human judgment, not a count; (c) 3 conceptual failure vs 0 conceptual success, 1 original -> fires (disconfirming majority)
- 3Unknown — underdeterminednot reached
alternative_explanations=1 (needs <=1) AND evidence_strength=2 (needs >=3)
- 4Establishednot reached
independent_replication=1 (>=4), evidence_strength=2 (>=4), consensus=2 (>=4)
- 5Strong, domain-limitednot reached
Recorded rationale
v3 rule 2, clause (c): three conceptual_replication_failure rows plus an original row. Under v2 this derived 'preliminary' and required a manual override; v3 reaches unknown_conflicting from the rule itself. Naive citation-only guess was 'established'. Pilot 2 (gap-discovery, no answer key).