Benzodiazepine Use and Risk of Dementia in the Elderly Population: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.008 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.030 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".