Acute Pharmacological Effects of Temazepam, Diphenhydramine, and Valerian in Healthy Elderly Subjects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Elderly insomniacs are often treated pharmacologically with benzodiazepines, antihistamines, or natural products. A double-blind, randomized, crossover, placebo-controlled study was performed to assess the comparative pharmacodynamics of single doses of temazepam (15 and 30 mg), diphenhydramine (50 and 75 mg), and valerian (400 and 800 mg) in 14 healthy elderly volunteers (mean age, 71.6 years; range, 65-89). Assessments were made at 0, 0.5, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 8 hours postdosing with use of validated measures of subjective sedation and mood (visual analogue scales, Tufts University Benzodiazepine scale) and psychomotor performance (manual tracking and digit symbol substitution tests). Temazepam had dose-dependent effects on sedation and psychomotor ability with a distinct time course. Temazepam 30 mg had the most detrimental effect on psychomotor ability (p < 0.001 compared with all other treatments). Temazepam 30 mg and both doses of diphenhydramine elicited significantly greater sedation than placebo (p < 0.05, all), and temazepam had the greatest effect. There was no difference in sedation scores between 50 and 75 mg diphenhydramine. Sedative effects were slightly lesser with 15 mg temazepam and were not significant in comparison with placebo. Psychomotor impairment was evident after administration of 75 mg diphenhydramine in comparison with placebo on the manual tracking test (p < 0.05); this was less than the impairment with 30 mg temazepam (p < 0.001) but similar to that with 15 mg temazepam (NS). No psychomotor impairment was detected with 50 mg diphenhydramine. Valerian was not different from placebo on any measure of psychomotor performance or sedation.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".