Effects of 2-Week Treatment With Temazepam and Diphenhydramine in Elderly Insomniacs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A randomized, controlled, crossover clinical study compared 14-night treatment with 15 mg temazepam, 50 mg diphenhydramine, and placebo in elderly individuals with insomnia (mean age, 73.9 years; range, 70-89 years). Primary outcome measures were subjective assessments of sleep recorded on sleep diaries. Secondary measures were the morning-after psychomotor impairment, using the digit symbol substitution task and the manual tracking task, and the morning-after memory impairment, using a free-recall procedure. Results showed sleep improvements with 15 mg temazepam compared with placebo-sleep quality (mean score, 3.3 +/- 0.9 vs 2.9 +/- 0.8; P = 0.03), total sleep time (6.9 +/- 1.0 hours vs 6.3 +/-1.3 hours; P = 0.02), number of awakenings (1.5 +/- 1.3 vs 2.0 +/- 1.2; P < 0.001), and sleep-onset latency (25 +/- 22 minutes vs 37 +/- 25 minutes; P = 0.03). Improvements were seen with diphenhydramine treatment compared with placebo on the number of awakenings only (mean, 1.7 +/- 1.1 vs 2.0 +/- 1.2; P < 0.05). Numbers of adverse events reported were similar after all treatments, although there was 1 fall during temazepam treatment. Findings indicate that temazepam is more effective than diphenhydramine when compared with placebo at the doses tested, although this advantage is mitigated by the risk of falls associated with temazepam use. The choice of agent to use in the elderly must consider these relative benefits and risks.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".