Concomitant use of alcohol and benzodiazepine hypnotics in psychiatric outpatients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Concomitant use of benzodiazepines and alcohol appears prevalent in a clinical setting. The objectives of this study were as follows: (1) to investigate the prevalence of concomitant use of benzodiazepine hypnotics and alcohol in psychiatric outpatients, (2) to examine the clinical characteristics and factors associated with the concomitant use, and (3) to investigate the awareness of the psychiatrists-in-charge about the concomitant use. Outpatients with schizophrenia, depression, and insomnia who were receiving benzodiazepine hypnotics were asked to fill in a sleeping diary for seven consecutive days in which use of hypnotics and alcohol was also recorded. Clinical characteristics were assessed, and logistic analysis was performed to examine factors associated with the concomitant use. In addition, psychiatrists-in-charge were asked as to whether they thought their patients were concomitantly using them. The prevalence rate of the concomitant use was 39.8% (37/93). The CAGE score showed significant positive association with the concomitant use (odds ratio = 2.40, 95% confidence interval = 1.39-4.16, P = 0.002). Only in 32.4% of the concomitant users were suspected by their psychiatrists. The results suggest that concomitantly used benzodiazepine hypnotics and alcohol appears prevalent, and has been frequently overlooked by treating psychiatrists. The CAGE questionnaire may be helpful to screen such potentially hazardous users.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".