Consumption of psychotropic medication in the elderly: a re‐evaluation of its effect on cognitive performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There have been few general population studies of the effects of psychotropic treatment on cognitive functioning in the elderly. Current evidence based on studies with numerous procedural shortenings supports the notion of the detrimental effect. OBJECTIVES: To examine changes in a wide range of specific cognitive abilities across time in a general population sample in order to establish a relationship between psychotropic drug use and cognitive performance, and to estimate to what extent such cognitive changes may be attributable to psychotropic use or other factors, notably age and co-morbidity. METHOD: We analysed the data from the Eugeria longitudinal study of cerebral ageing. Three hundred and seventy two subjects (263 female and 109 male) were visited at their place of residence and given a computerized cognitive examination. Depressive symptomatology and depressive episodes were defined according to ICD-9 criterias and medication use were established. Four categories of psychotropic consumers was differentiated. Using a logistic regression model, comparisons were made between consumers and non-consumers. RESULTS: A significant positive effect in chronic consumers was found on tests of secondary memory (delayed verbal recall: Odds Ratio (OR)=1.22; 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) [1.04-1.43]; p=0.013) and this effect is principally attributable to antidepressants with significant effects being shown for both verbal (OR=1.59; 95%CI [1.18-2.14]; p=0.002) and visual recall (OR=1.51; 95%CI [1.05-2.16]; p=0.025). No effect is found for benzodiazepines. CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to the common belief that psychotropic drug use has a detrimental effect on cognitive function of elderly people, even long term use is seen to be benign. We attest to the positive effects of antidepressant therapy on secondary memory.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".