Dependence on benzodiazepines in patients with panic disorder: A cross‐sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: The aim of this cross-sectional study was to examine the prevalence of psychological dependence on benzodiazepines in outpatients with panic disorder and elucidate demographic and clinical characteristics associated with this condition. METHODS: Subjects were eligible if they were outpatients in four clinics in Tokyo, Japan, aged 18 years or older and met the diagnostic criteria for panic disorder according to the ICD-10. The subjects received the following assessments: the Severity of Dependence Scale, Japanese Version (SDS), the Self-Report Version of Panic Disorder Severity Scale, Japanese Version (PDSS-SR), and the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Self Report, Japanese Version. The following information was also collected: age, sex, ethnicity, duration of illness, physical and psychiatric comorbidities, and details of prescribed psychotropic medications. RESULTS: The data from 51 outpatients showed that 31 patients (60.8%) showed psychological dependence (i.e. a total score of ≥5 in the SDS). The proportion of patients with dependence was significantly lower in remitted patients (i.e. a total score of ≤4 in the PDSS) (44.1%, n = 15/34) than those who were not (94.1%, n = 16/17) (Pearson χ(2) = 11.9, P < 0.001). A multiple regression analysis showed that the PDSS scores showed a positive correlation with the SDS total scores (β = 0.60, 95% confidence interval = 0.30-0.90, P = 0.0001). CONCLUSION: These findings emphasize the need for enhanced awareness about benzodiazepine dependence in patients and psychiatrists, as well as especially close attention to patients with panic disorder who present severe symptomatology.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".