Hypnotics and Triazolobenzodiazepines - Best Predictors of High-Dose Benzodiazepine Use: Results from the Luxembourg National Health Insurance Registry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Benzodiazepines are not all the same concerning their risk of high-dose use. METHODS: We studied benzodiazepine use from the Luxembourg national records of all insured. We calculated the 12-year prevalence from 1995 to 2007. Benzodiazepine users were divided into 3 groups, short-term with no longer than 3-month intake, intermediate with multiple administration with at least a 1-year interruption, and continuous who never stopped. A high-dose user (HDU) was defined as a patient who received a higher dose than the yearly maximum usual therapeutic dose. RESULTS: An average of 16.0% of the adult insured population received at least 1 benzodiazepine annually, 42.9% were older than 50, 55.9% were women, and 5.4% were HDUs. We found that 32.6% were short-term users, 49.0% intermediate and 18.4% continuous. Compared to diazepam, hypnotics had higher risks for high-dose use in at least 1 age group at first-benzodiazepine intake, the risks being greater in elderly subjects and women, the highest risks being with triazolam (adjusted odds ratio = 215.85; 95% confidence interval = 133.75-348.35) in the 69- to 105-year-old group at first-benzodiazepine intake. Anxiolytics had a low risk except for alprazolam and prazepam in the 69- to 105-year-old group at first-benzodiazepine intake, clonazepam and clobazam had the lowest risk in 18- to 43-year-olds at first-benzodiazepine intake. Alprazolam had dispensed volumes increased by threefold over the 12-year period. CONCLUSION: All hypnotics had higher risks for high-dose use compared to diazepam in continuous users. Two anxiolytics, clonazepam and clobazam, had the lowest risks. Hypnotics and the triazolobenzodiazepines alprazolam and triazolam were most problematic. Elderly subjects and women are at greater risks.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".