Benzodiazepine drug use and adverse respiratory outcomes among older adults with COPD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our purpose was to evaluate the association of new benzodiazepine use relative to non-use with adverse clinical respiratory outcomes among older adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This was a retrospective population-based cohort study of Ontario, Canada, residents between 2003 and 2010. A validated algorithm was applied to health administrative data to identify adults aged 66 years and older with COPD. Relative risks (RRs) of several clinically important respiratory outcomes were examined within 30 days of incident benzodiazepine use compared with non-use, applying propensity score matching. New benzodiazepine users were at significantly higher risk for outpatient respiratory exacerbations (RR 1.45, 95% CI 1.36-1.54) and emergency room visits for COPD or pneumonia (RR 1.92, 95% CI 1.69-2.18) compared to non-users. Risk of hospitalisation for COPD or pneumonia was also increased in benzodiazepine users, but was nonsignificant (RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.00-1.20). There were no significant differences in intensive care unit admissions between the two groups and all-cause mortality was slightly lower among new versus non-users. Benzodiazepines were associated with increased risk for several serious adverse respiratory outcomes among older adults with COPD. The findings suggest that decisions to use benzodiazepines in older patients with COPD need to consider potential adverse respiratory outcomes.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".