Evaluating the Cognitive Impact of Anxiolytics on Elderly Patients: A prospective observational study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The cognitive effects of anxiolytics in older adults are an important domain to research given the high rates of anxiety disorders and these medications commonly prescribed. Benzodiazepines, and some of the newer non-benzo" sedative anxiolytic agents have been associated with cognitive effects as a potential side effect. This study is going to be conducted in Lady Reading Hospital (LRH) Peshawar; thus the data will reflect upon population served by this particular hospital. Objectives: To assess the cognitive impact of anxiolytic medication in geriatric patients, specifically on short-term memory (STM), attention and executive functions. Design: A observational study. Place and Duration of Study: Department of Pharmacy, Lady Reading Hospital-Peshawar starting from January 05th 2021 to July 05th ,2022. Methods: This was an observational study conducted on 150 elderly patients at Lady Reading Hospital through non probability sampling, comparing cognitive domain of functioning between 75 users and rest controls. Cognitive function was evaluated by Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment before and after the medication. Results - This section will describe the cognitive score changes in relation to anxiolytic use. One-way ANOVA will be utilized to examine the differences in cognitive outcomes according drug type, dosage and duration of use. Conclusions: The use of anxiolytics in elderly patients is associated with deterioration cognitive function, which was confirmed by a decrease MMSE and MoCA scores during the course of treatment. The potential cognitive side effects when prescribing anxiolytics to the elderly requires a nuanced approach by healthcare providers. Keywords: Anxiolytics; older adult patients; cognitive performance, MMSE/MoCA.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".