Cognitive behavioural therapy improved benzodiazepine discontinuation in chronic insomnia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Baillargeon L, Landreville P, Verreault R, et al . Discontinuation of benzodiazepines among older insomniac adults treated with cognitive-behavioural therapy combined with gradual tapering: a randomized trial. CMAJ 2003;169:1015–20.[OpenUrl][1][Abstract/FREE Full Text][2] Q In older patients with chronic insomnia who have been taking a benzodiazepine nightly for ⩾3 months, is cognitive behavioural therapy plus tapering (CBTT) more effective than tapering alone (TA) for inducing benzodiazepine discontinuation? ### ![Graphic][3] Design: randomised controlled trial. ### ![Graphic][4] Allocation: not concealed. ### ![Graphic][5] Blinding: unblinded. ### ![Graphic][6] Follow up period: 12 months. ### ![Graphic][7] Setting: a university hospital in Sainte-Foy, Québec, Canada. ### ![Graphic][8] Patients: 65 patients ⩾50 years of age (mean age 67 y, 58% women) with chronic insomnia (⩾6 months); impaired daytime functioning or mood disturbances; nightly benzodiazepine use for ⩾3 months; and inability to refrain from taking a hypnotic for fear of poor sleep or reported <80% sleep efficiency (total sleep … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DCanadian%2BMedical%2BAssociation%2BJournal%26rft.stitle%253DCMAJ%26rft.aulast%253DBaillargeon%26rft.auinit1%253DL.%26rft.volume%253D169%26rft.issue%253D10%26rft.spage%253D1015%26rft.epage%253D1020%26rft.atitle%253DDiscontinuation%2Bof%2Bbenzodiazepines%2Bamong%2Bolder%2Binsomniac%2Badults%2Btreated%2Bwith%2Bcognitive-behavioural%2Btherapy%2Bcombined%2Bwith%2Bgradual%2Btapering%253A%2Ba%2Brandomized%2Btrial%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F14609970%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/ijlink?linkType=ABST&journalCode=cmaj&resid=169/10/1015&atom=%2Febnurs%2F7%2F2%2F52.atom [3]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [4]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif [5]: /embed/inline-graphic-3.gif [6]: /embed/inline-graphic-4.gif [7]: /embed/inline-graphic-5.gif [8]: /embed/inline-graphic-6.gif
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) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".