Comparison of the Effects of Zaleplon, Zolpidem, and Triazolam on Memory, Learning, and Psychomotor Performance
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Twenty-four healthy male and female subjects, who participated in this randomized, double-blind, crossover study, received single nighttime doses of zaleplon 10 mg (therapeutic dose), zaleplon 20 mg, zolpidem 10 mg (therapeutic dose), zolpidem 20 mg, triazolam 0.25 mg (positive control), and placebo. Subjective behavioral ratings and psychomotor tests were completed before and 1.25 and 8.25 hours after administration of the study drug. The Immediate and Delayed Word Recall tests and the Digit Span Test were used to assess memory. The Digit-Symbol Substitution Test, Paired Associates Learning Test, and Divided Attention Test were used to assess other cognitive skills. Zaleplon 10 mg did not produce any significant changes in memory or learning compared with placebo. All other active treatments, including zolpidem 10 mg, caused psychomotor impairment at the 1.25-hour test battery. Zolpidem 20 mg (twice the therapeutic dose) produced more psychomotor impairment at the 1.25-hour assessment than did any of the other active treatments, including zaleplon 20 mg. At the 8.25-hour time point, test scores for subjects who received zaleplon 10 mg and 20 mg did not differ from the test scores for those who received placebo. However, cognitive impairment persisted up to the 8.25-hour observation for subjects who were administered triazolam 0.25 mg and zolpidem 20 mg. Adverse events associated with the use of zaleplon were transient and mild-to-moderate in severity. Overall, this study shows that zaleplon is a safe hypnotic that does not affect memory, learning, or psychomotor skills associated with vigilance.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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 it