Hypnotic taper with or without self-help treatment of insomnia: A randomized clinical trial.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to assess the efficacy of a minimal intervention focusing on hypnotic discontinuation and cognitive-behavioral treatment (CBT) for insomnia. Fifty-three adult chronic users of hypnotics were randomly assigned to an 8-week hypnotic taper program, used alone or combined with a self-help CBT. Weekly hypnotic use decreased in both conditions, from a nearly nightly use at baseline to less than once a week at posttreatment. Nightly dosage (in lorazepam equivalent) decreased from 1.67 mg to 0.12 mg. Participants who received CBT improved their sleep efficiency by 8%, whereas those who did not remained stable. Total wake time decreased by 52 min among CBT participants and increased by 13 min among those receiving the taper schedule alone. Total sleep time remained stable throughout withdrawal in both CBT and taper conditions. The present findings suggest that a systematic withdrawal schedule might be sufficient in helping chronic users stop their hypnotic medication. The addition of a self-help treatment focusing on insomnia, a readily available and cost-effective alternative to individual psychotherapy, produced greater sleep improvement.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".