Effects of discontinuing benzodiazepine‐derivative hypnotics on postural sway and cognitive functions in the elderly
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Benzodiazepines (BZDs) have been reported to cause negative impacts on body stability and cognitive functions, which in turn could result in lethal incidents, including falls, especially in the elderly. This fact notwithstanding, no systematic trial has evaluated the feasibility and benefits of discontinuing BZD-derivative hypnotics in this population, which was addressed in this study. METHODS: In this 8-week open-label study, subjects aged ≥ 60 living in a nursing home who received BZD as a hypnotic were recruited. The BZD dose was tapered off over 3 weeks. The following assessments were performed 12 h post-dose at baseline and at endpoint: the Clinical Stabilometric Platform (CSP), the Critical Flicker Fusion Test (CFF), the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS), and the Leeds Sleep Evaluation Questionnaire (LSEQ). RESULTS: Thirty subjects were enrolled (mean ± SD age = 79.1 ± 8.9 years, mean ± SD flurazepam equivalent BZD dose = 19.5 ± 10.9 mg/day). Psychiatric diagnoses (DSM-IV) of subjects were as follows: schizophrenia (n = 12), primary insomnia (n = 9), dementia (n = 7), and bipolar disorder (n = 2). In 26 completers, significant changes were found in a total length and a range of trunk motion with eyes closed. Significant improvements were also observed in the CFF and RBANS immediate memory, language, and attention index scores. Subjective worsening in sleep was not reported in those completers, assessed with the LSEQ. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that discontinuation of BZD hypnotics is feasible in a majority of elderly persons and leads to an improvement in the stability of body and a recovery in cognitive functions during the daytime.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".