MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1974901002 · doi:10.1207/s15327655jchn2204_4

Mental Health for Older Adults and Benzodiazpine Use

2005· article· en· W1974901002 on OpenAlexaff
Philippe Voyer, Philippe Cappeliez, Guilhème Pérodeau, Michel Préville

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Community Health Nursing · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and related disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthPopulationPsychologyPsychiatryGerontologyMedicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Benzodiazepine (BZD) drug use among community-dwelling seniors is a significant health issue. Although long-term use of BZDs by seniors is a recognized problem, little is known about the mental health of the consumers. Better knowledge of their mental health would help nurses in identifying the psychological needs of this population. The goals of this longitudinal study1 (n = 138) were to describe the mental health status of long-term users of BZDs and to compare it with the mental health of seniors who have either begun or stopped consuming BZDs over a 1-year period (from Phase 1 to Phase 2). Results showed that one third of long-term users of BZDs do not present any mental health problem. Furthermore, no differences were observed between the mental health statuses of new users of BZDs, individuals who stopped using BZDs, and long-term users of BZDs. In conclusion, at least one third of long-term users of BZDs should stop using these drugs, and nurses should play a leading role in helping these seniors withdraw from BZD consumption.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.362 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Community Health NursingSame topicSleep and related disordersFrench-language works237,207