MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2130845265 · doi:10.1017/s0714980815000082

Associations between Benzodiazepine Use and Neuropsychological Test Scores in Older Adults

2015· article· fr· W2130845265 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Edward Helmes, Truls Østbye

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement · 2015
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsPsychologyHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Benzodiazepines are widely prescribed for anxiety, although use of this class of medications has been associated with dependency and cognitive changes. This article describes the study in which we investigated the relationship between the class of benzodiazepine available for use and associated performance on neuropsychological tests in a community sample of 1,754 older Canadians from the Canadian Study of Health and Aging. Benzodiazepines were classified as short-, intermediate-, and long-acting. Associations were calculated between each class of benzodiazepine and eight neuropsychological measures, using multiple regression analysis and controlling for demographic variables. Results showed different effects of the co-variates across the three drug classes, and short half-life benzodiazepines were not associated with any neuropsychological measure. Intermediate half-life and long half-life benzodiazepine use were each associated with two measures. Increased focus on specific domains of cognitive function is needed to improve our understanding of how benzodiazepine use influences cognition.

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)0.003
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 score0.568
Threshold uncertainty score0.870

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Citations20
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissementSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207