MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2031337382 · doi:10.1017/s0714980810000115

The Prevalence of Benzodiazepine Dependence among Community-Dwelling Older Adult Users in Quebec According to Typical and Atypical Criteria

2010· article· fr· W2031337382 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Philippe Voyer, Michel Préville, David Cohen, Djamal Berbiche, Sarah‐Gabrielle Béland

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement · 2010
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and related disorders
Canadian institutionsHôpital Charles-Le MoyneUniversité de SherbrookeUniversité Laval
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsBenzodiazepinePsychiatryOlder peopleMedical prescriptionMedicinePsychologyGerontologyInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Use of benzodiazepines, common among older people, may lead to substance dependence. DSM-IV-TR criteria for this iatrogenic problem may apply poorly to older persons following a physician-prescribed regimen. This study, first of its kind, aimed to determine the prevalence rate of benzodiazepine dependence in older persons according to DSM-IV-TR and other atypical criteria. METHODS: Descriptive study based on face-to-face interviews conducted in the homes of 2,785 persons aged 65 years or older who were randomly selected from across the province of Quebec, Canada. RESULTS: Use of benzodiazepines was reported by 25.4% of respondents. Among them, 9.5% met DSM-IV-TR criteria for substance dependence. However, 43% of users reported being dependent, and one third agreed that it would be a good thing to stop taking benzodiazepines. INTERPRETATION: Benzodiazepine substance dependence is established at one tenth of community-dwelling older persons taking these medications, although a much larger proportion self-labels as dependent.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.536
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations54
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissementSame topicSleep and related disordersFrench-language works237,207