Benzodiazepines and elderly drivers: a comparison of pharmacoepidemiological study designs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Contradictory results were published from two studies in the late 1990s about the effects of long half-life benzodiazepine use on the risk of motor vehicle crashes (MVCs) in the elderly. The use of different study designs could explain the differences observed in these studies. METHODS: The results of an unmatched case-control study were compared to those of a case-crossover study using the same prescription claims database to determine whether the current use of benzodiazepines increased the risk of MVCs. RESULTS: There were 5579 cases and 12 911 controls identified between the years 1990 and 1993 in the province of Quebec, Canada. The case-control approach demonstrated an increased rate of injurious MVC associated with the current use of long-acting benzodiazepines [odds ratio (OR) 1.45; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.12-1.88]. The case-crossover approach applied to all cases did not show any association [OR 0.99; 95%CI: 0.83-1.19]. However, among the cases restricted to subjects with four or less prescriptions filled in the previous year, corresponding more to transient exposures, the OR was elevated [OR 1.53; 95%CI: 1.08-2.16]. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in study design and analysis may explain some of the discrepancies in previous results. Both study designs provide evidence that long-acting benzodiazepines appear to be associated with an increased risk of MVC.
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 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 | 0.017 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".