Clobazam as Add-on Therapy in Children with Epileptic Encephalopathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: Clobazam has been used successfully in adults and children with partial epilepsy. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of clobazam as add-on therapy in children with epileptic encephalopathy. METHODS: This was a retrospective study conducted at the pediatric epilepsy clinic of our university hospital. Children less than 18-years of age with epileptic encephalopathy were included in the study. Clobazam was introduced as add-on therapy, starting with 5 mg/Kg/day and increased in minimally effective doses, up to the maximum tolerated dose. Data were obtained from clinical files and follow-up visits. RESULTS: Ninety-seven patients were included in the study (39 girls), aged between 1 and 17-years-old (mean = 9.9). Twenty-six patients had Lennox-Gastaut syndrome, seven had myoclonic astatic epilepsy, nine had West syndrome and, in 57 patients, the type of epileptic encephalopathy could not be determined. Clobazam dosage ranged from 5 to 60 mg/day (mean = 37.5 mg/day). Forty (41%) patients presented with adverse events, most of which were mild and transitory, and clobazam needed to be withdrawn in only 11 patients. Nine (9.2%) patients were seizure-free after clobazam adjunctive therapy. In 11 (11.3%) patients seizure improvement was >75%, in 16 (16.5%) it was >50%, in 17 (17.5%) improvement was <50% and in 44 (45.5%) there was no change in seizure frequency. Three patients were lost to follow-up. In 85% of the patients with seizure improvement, the results lasted for more than one year. CONCLUSION: Clobazam is safe and effective in the treatment of epileptic encephalopathies of childhood.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".