Benzodiazepines: Risks and benefits. A reconsideration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the last decade there have been further developments in our knowledge of the risks and benefits of benzodiazepines, and of the risks and benefits of alternatives to benzodiazepines. Representatives drawn from the Psychopharmacology Special Interest Group of the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the British Association for Psychopharmacology together examined these developments, and have provided this joint statement with recommendations for clinical practice. The working group was mindful of widespread concerns about benzodiazepines and related anxiolytic and hypnotic drugs. The group believes that whenever benzodiazepines are prescribed, the potential for dependence or other harmful effects must be considered. However, the group also believes that the risks of dependence associated with long-term use should be balanced against the benefits that in many cases follow from the short or intermittent use of benzodiazepines and the risk of the underlying conditions for which treatment is being provided.
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 | 0.015 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.028 | 0.045 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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".