Sleep EEG Power Spectra, Insomnia, and Chronic Use of Benzodiazepines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVES: The present study examined the sleep microstructure in relation to insomnia and chronic use of benzodiazepines in older adults. PARTICIPANTS: The participants were 46 older adults, aged 55 or older (mean age = 62.9), who were divided into three groups: insomnia sufferers using BZ chronically (n = 15), drug-free insomnia sufferers (n = 15), and self-defined good sleepers (n = 16). DESIGN: Participants completed 3 consecutive nights of polysomnography in the laboratory. Spectral analyses were carried on the second night of sleep recordings. Stages 2, 3, and 4 of the first 4 cycles of the second night were retained for the analysis. RESULTS: Results showed no significant differences between drug-free insomnia sufferers and good sleepers. However, benzodiazepine users exhibited significantly less delta and theta activity over the night than did good sleepers. When compared to drug-free insomnia sufferers, benzodiazepine users had less delta and theta activity within cycle 2 only. Regarding high-frequency bands, benzodiazepine users had more beta 1 activity within cycle 3 than did good sleepers and more than both drug-free insomnia sufferers and good sleepers within cycle 4. CONCLUSIONS: The findings show that spectral analysis is an efficient tool to detect and quantify the effects of benzodiazepine use on sleep structure, particularly with older adults, a group for whom macrostructure sleep alterations due to physiologic aging are hard to distinguish from sleep changes induced by insomnia and the use of hypnotic drugs. In addition, these results raise important questions about the effects and indications of prolonged use of benzodiazepine medications in older adults with insomnia complaints.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".