MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2058637165 · doi:10.1108/14777270310459986

Sedative‐hypnotic prescription in an out‐patient mental health service in the north‐west

2003· article· en· W2058637165 on OpenAlexaff
Venu Duddu, P. T. Saleem, K. Green

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Governance An International Journal · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and related disorders
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsZopicloneMedical prescriptionZolpidemTemazepamMedicineBenzodiazepineSedativeAnxietySedative/hypnoticPsychiatryHypnoticMental healthPharmacologyInsomniaInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sedative‐hypnotic medications are commonly abused prescription drugs, which are commonly prescribed by psychiatrists. We aimed at studying benzodiazepine and related drug prescriptions among patients attending psychiatric out‐patient clinics of a hospital in East Lancashire. A total of 6.2 per cent of patients who attended the department in one representative week were prescribed benzodiazepine/related drugs. A majority of these had anxiety disorders, and anxiety was the major indication for prescription of these drugs. Diazepam, temazepam and related drugs like zopiclone/zolpidem were the most commonly prescribed. Most subjects had been on the drug for one to 12 months. The prescriptions were not in keeping with the BNF guidelines in most cases. The findings do not support the hypothesis of an unduly high prevalence of sedative prescriptions in this setting. The results highlight a need for complete documentation of various aspects of benzodiazepine prescriptions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score0.154

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.063
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.352 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Governance An International JournalSame topicSleep and related disordersFrench-language works237,207