Benzodiazepine use and quality of sleep in the community-dwelling elderly population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: About 50% of the elderly population report being dissatisfied with their sleep. Although benzodiazepines are the most prescribed drugs to treat sleep complaints, the effectiveness of their use on the quality of sleep is not well documented. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess the association between benzodiazepine use and global sleep quality, as well as six components of sleep quality. METHODS: Data from the cross-sectional Quebec Survey on Seniors' Health (n = 2798) conducted in 2005-2006 were used. Quality of sleep was self-reported and use of benzodiazepines was assessed during the previous year. RESULTS: Benzodiazepine users reported poorer quality of sleep than non-users. The association between benzodiazepine use and each of the six quality of sleep components studied were similar except for the daytime dysfunction component. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that there is no evidence that using benzodiazepines is associated with better quality of sleep than non-users in the elderly population. Future longitudinal population-based studies are needed to assess improvements in quality of sleep in the elderly associated with the use of benzodiazepines.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".