Primer on visual field testing, electroretinography, and other visual assessments for patients treated with vigabatrin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vigabatrin, an irreversible inhibitor of γ-aminobutyric acid transaminase, is an antiepileptic drug indicated in the United States as adjunctive therapy for adult patients with refractory complex partial seizures who have responded inadequately to several alternative treatments and for monotherapy treatment of infantile spasms in patients 1 month to 2 years of age. Approval of vigabatrin in the United States was contingent on the implementation of a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) to manage the threat of a progressive, permanent bilateral concentric peripheral visual field defects (pVFDs) that may occur in patients treated with vigabatrin. The REMS is designed to promote compliance with evidence-based recommendations for baseline (within 4 weeks of the start of treatment) ophthalmologic evaluations and ongoing vision monitoring in all patients treated with vigabatrin. In view of the challenges associated with visual field testing in patients with epilepsy and in infants, clinicians must understand the qualitative (pattern of damage), quantitative (degree of damage), electrophysiologic, and adjunctive techniques recommended for monitoring vigabatrin-treated patients. The objectives of ongoing research are to characterize the onset, progression, and risk of developing vision loss during the first year of vigabatrin treatment and to evaluate the potential of noninvasive imaging as a method for monitoring retinal changes corresponding to the pVFD. This article provides an overview of visual field testing procedures and electroretinography, summarizes the clinical characteristics of vigabatrin-associated pVFDs, and provides recommendations for visual field and visual electrophysiology testing relevant to both adult and infant patients treated with vigabatrin.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".