Comparison of Lorazepam and Zopiclone for Insomnia in Patients with Stroke and Brain Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Li Pi Shan RS, Ashworth NL: Comparison of lorazepam and zopiclone for insomnia in patients with stroke and brain injury: A randomized, crossover, double-blinded trial. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2004;83:421–427. Objectives: To determine if lorazepam or zopiclone is more effective in providing a restful night of sleep and to assess the effects of these medications on cognition. Design: A randomized, double-blinded, crossover trial was performed at a tertiary care rehabilitation inpatient unit in a teaching hospital. A total of 18 brain-injured and stroke patients, aged 20–78 yrs, were administered lorazepam, 0.5–1.0 mg, orally at bedtime as needed for 7 days and zopiclone, 3.75–7.5 mg, orally at bedtime as needed for 7 days. Total sleep time and characteristics of sleep were measured. Effects on cognition were also measured using the Folstein Mini Mental Status Exam. Results: There was no difference in average sleep duration or in subjective measures of sleep. Cognition as assessed by the Mini Mental Status Exam revealed no difference in the zopiclone arm compared with the lorazepam arm. Conclusion: Zopiclone is equally effective as lorazepam in the treatment of insomnia in stroke and brain-injured patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".