MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2087176798 · doi:10.2174/1381612023396654

Cognitive and Sedative Effects of Benzodiazepine Use

2002· review· en· W2087176798 on OpenAlexaff
Susan E. Buffett-Jerrott, Sherry H. Stewart

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Pharmaceutical Design · 2002
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnterograde amnesiaBenzodiazepineCognitionAmnesiaSedationSedativePsychologyCognitive psychologyEffects of sleep deprivation on cognitive performancePriming (agriculture)NeuroscienceExplicit memoryImplicit memoryMedicineEpisodic memoryAnesthesiaInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper reviews the effects of benzodiazepines (BZs) on the performance of tasks measuring human cognitive abilities. The paper reviews the most common cognitive side effects of BZs: increased sedation, decreased attention, and anterograde amnesia. In particular, this paper focuses on recent findings regarding time course-related effects on BZ-induced deficits in explicit and implicit human memory performance. Specifically, we reviewed recent research indicating that both explicit memory and priming are impaired by BZs if the encoding task takes place near the time of the theoretical peak plasma concentrations of the drug. Although BZs also appear to increase objective and subjective sedation, as well as to impair attentional processing, these other cognitive impairments do not appear to fully account for the widespread memory deficits caused by BZ administration. The theoretical and clinical implications of benzodiazepine-induced memory impairments are discussed.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.366
GPT teacher head0.457
Teacher spread0.090 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations309
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Pharmaceutical DesignSame topicEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesFrench-language works237,207