Use of benzodiazepines in obsessive–compulsive disorder
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to determine the frequency of benzodiazepine (BDZ) use in a large sample of patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and ascertain the type of BDZ used and the correlates and predictors of BDZ use in OCD. The sample consisted of 955 patients with OCD from a comprehensive, cross-sectional, multicentre study conducted by the Brazilian Research Consortium on Obsessive-Compulsive Spectrum Disorders between 2003 and 2009. The rate of BDZ use over time in this OCD sample was 38.4%. Of individuals taking BDZs, 96.7% used them in combination with other medications, usually serotonin reuptake inhibitors. The most commonly used BDZ was clonazepam. Current age, current level of anxiety and number of additional medications for OCD taken over time significantly predicted BDZ use. This is the first study to comprehensively examine BDZ use in OCD patients, demonstrating that it is relatively common, despite recommendations from treatment guidelines. Use of BDZs in combination with several other medications over time and in patients with marked anxiety suggests that OCD patients taking BDZs may be more complex and more difficult to manage. This calls for further research and clarification of the role of BDZs in the treatment of OCD.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it