MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2564453682 · doi:10.1159/000454881

Benzodiazepine Use and Risk of Dementia in the Elderly Population: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2016· review· en· W2564453682 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuroepidemiology · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsASTER
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDementiaMeta-analysisPopulationSystematic reviewBenzodiazepineMEDLINEGerontologyPsychiatryEnvironmental healthDiseaseInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Benzodiazepines are a widely used medication in developed countries, particularly among elderly patients. However, benzodiazepines are known to affect memory and cognition and might thus enhance the risk of dementia. The objective of this review is to synthesize evidence from observational studies that evaluated the association between benzodiazepines use and dementia risk. SUMMARY: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled observational studies to evaluate the risk of benzodiazepines use on dementia outcome. All control observational studies that compared dementia outcome in patients with benzodiazepine use with a control group were included. We calculated pooled ORs using a random-effects model. Ten studies (of 3,696 studies identified) were included in the systematic review, of which 8 studies were included in random-effects meta-analysis and sensitivity analyses. Odds of dementia were 78% higher in those who used benzodiazepines compared with those who did not use benzodiazepines (OR 1.78; 95% CI 1.33-2.38). In subgroup analysis, the higher association was still found in the studies from Asia (OR 2.40; 95% CI 1.66-3.47) whereas a moderate association was observed in the studies from North America and Europe (OR 1.49; 95% CI 1.34-1.65 and OR 1.43; 95% CI 1.16-1.75). Also, diabetics, hypertension, cardiac disease, and statin drugs were associated with increased risk of dementia but negative association was observed in the case of body mass index. There was significant statistical and clinical heterogeneity among studies for the main analysis and most of the sensitivity analyses. There was significant statistical and clinical heterogeneity among the studies for the main analysis and most of the sensitivity analyses. Key Messages: Our results suggest that benzodiazepine use is significantly associated with dementia risk. However, observational studies cannot clarify whether the observed epidemiologic association is a causal effect or the result of some unmeasured confounding variable. Therefore, more research is needed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.829
Threshold uncertainty score0.876

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.166
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.259 · 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