MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2070358400 · doi:10.1037/0022-006x.74.5.908

Benzodiazepine discontinuation among adults with GAD: A randomized trial of cognitive-behavioral therapy.

2006· article· en· W2070358400 on OpenAlexafffund
Patrick Gosselin, Robert Ladouceur, Charles M. Morin, Michel J. Dugas, Lucie Baillargeon

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalCentre hospitalier universitaire de QuébecConcordia UniversityUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsDiscontinuationBenzodiazepineGeneralized anxiety disorderPsychologyCognitive behavioral therapyRandomized controlled trialAnxietyCognitionCognitive therapyPsychiatryTaperingInternal medicineClinical psychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study evaluated the specific effectiveness of cognitive-behavior therapy (CBT) combined with medication tapering for benzodiazepine discontinuation among generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) patients by using a nonspecific therapy control group. Sixty-one patients who had used benzodiazepines for more than 12 months were randomly assigned to the experimental conditions. Nearly 75% of patients in the CBT condition completely ceased benzodiazepine intake, as compared with 37% in the control condition. Results of the 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-ups confirmed the maintenance of complete cessation. Discontinuation rates remained twice as high in the CBT condition. The number of patients who no longer met GAD criteria was also greater in the CBT condition. The addition of specific CBT components thus seemed to facilitate benzodiazepine tapering among patients with GAD.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.454
Teacher spread0.375 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations124
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Consulting and Clinical PsychologySame topicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesFrench-language works237,207