MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3031410741 · doi:10.1093/sleep/zsaa056.506

0509 Use of Blinded Hypnotic Tapering for Hypnotic Discontinuation

2020· article· en· W3031410741 on OpenAlexaff
Jack D. Edinger, F. Walmboldt, Kristen E. Holm, Rachel L. Johnson, B. Simmons, Shang‐Yi Tsai, Charles M. Morin

Bibliographic record

VenueSLEEP · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and related disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTaperingDiscontinuationMedicineHypnoticAnxietyAnesthesiaBenzodiazepineSurgeryInternal medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Many patients have difficulties achieving hypnotic discontinuation due to anxiety that arises when they knowingly reduce their hypnotic dose or withhold it entirely. This study tested a blinded tapering approach to reduce patients’ anxiety and help them discontinue their hypnotics. Methods The study sample included 78 (M age = 55.2 ± 12.8 yrs.; 65.4% women) users of benzodiazepine and benzodiazepine receptor agonists. Following baseline assessments, enrollees first completed 4 sessions of cognitive behavioral insomnia therapy (CBTI). Subsequently they were randomized to one of three 20-week, double-blinded tapering protocols wherein their medication dosage either remained unchanged (CTRL) or was reduced by 25% or 10% every two weeks. At the end of the 20-week period the study blind was eliminated and those who completed one of the two blinded tapering protocols entered a 3-month follow-up period, whereas CTRL participants were offered an open label taper before completing the follow-up. Results Among those who completed one of the blinded tapering protocols, 92.9% totally discontinued their medication use by the end of the 20-week tapering phase, whereas 77.3% in the CTRL group discontinued hypnotic use by the end of their open label tapering. At follow-up 72.1% of those who completed blinded tapering remained medication free whereas only 52% of those who underwent open-label tapering remained medication free. Comparisons at follow-up showed those who received the open-label taper continued to use hypnotics on average 2-3 nights/week compared to about 1 time every other week for the blinded taper group (p = .05). The average weekly diazepam equivalent dose of medication used by the open label tapering group was about 5 times higher than the average weekly dose used by the blind tapering group (p = .025). Conclusion CBTI combined with blinded hypnotic tapering is a promising treatment approach for helping hypnotic users overcome their medication dependence. Support National Institute of Drug Abuse, Grant # R34 DA042329-01

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.085
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSLEEPSame topicSleep and related disordersFrench-language works237,207