Bibliographic record
Abstract
espanolObjetivo: analizar los factores de riesgo asociados al abuso y dependencia de benzodiacepinas. Material y metodos: revision de los estudios publicados en los que se analizan distintos factores de riesgo asociado al abuso y dependencia de benzodiacepinas. Resultados: son varios los factores que influyen para que un paciente abuse y/o se haga dependiente de las benzodiacepinas. En cada paciente es preciso evaluar la relacion beneficio/riesgo antes de prescribir este grupo de farmacos. Conclusiones: las benzodiacepinas continuan siendo los farmacos de eleccion de distintos procesos como la ansiedad y el insomnio. Sin embargo no debe minimizarse el potencial de riesgo de abuso y dependencia de estos farmacos. Desde el punto de vista de las politicas de salud, la regulacion efectiva del uso de los medicamentos depende basicamente de si la medicacion prescrita tiene un beneficio terapeutico que sobrepase los riesgos de salud que pueda presentar. EnglishObjective: analyze the risk factors associated to benzodiazepine drug abuse and dependence. Material and methods: a review was made of the studies published in which different risk factors associated to benzodiazepine drug abuse and dependence are analyzed. Results: there are several factors that influence the patient to abuse and/or become dependent on benzodiazepines. The risk/benefit relationship in each patient must be evaluated prior to prescribing this drug group. Conclusions: benzodiazepines continue to be the drug of choice in different conditions such as anxiety and insomnia. However, the potential risk for abuse and dependence of these drugs should not be minimized. From the point of view of health care policies the effective regulation of the use of the drugs basically depends on whether the drug prescribed has a therapeutic benefit that is greater than health risks that can occur.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".