The choice of antiepileptic drugs in newly diagnosed epilepsy: a national French survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The choice of an antiepileptic drug (AED) in patients with epilepsy is mainly based on efficacy and safety of each drug. However, these criteria of drug selection should be further evaluated according to the epileptic syndromes, and adjusted to the sex and age of the patient. Unfortunately, very few studies have been conducted based on these latter criteria. We conducted a survey on the management of epilepsy treatment in adults. This survey was undertaken in France, and led to the establishment of a French consensus on antiepileptic drug treatment in adult patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy. Patients were grouped into 18 categories according to the epileptic syndrome (absence epilepsy, juvenile myoclonic epilepsy, undetermined idiopathic generalized epilepsy, symptomatic or cryptogenic partial epilepsy and unclassified epilepsy), and to the patient's gender and age. Our survey suggests that there is a consensus among French epileptologists for the choice of AEDs, mainly based on the epilepsy syndrome. Gender also plays a crucial role. Sodium valproate and lamotrigine are the two drugs of choice for generalized epilepsies, as well as for undetermined epilepsies. Lamotrigine is often prefered for women of childbearing age. First line AEDs in partial epilepsy are carbamazepine (particularly for men), lamotrigine (particularly for women), and gabapentin (in the elderly). In cases of failure and/or intolerance to one of these AED, the principal alternatives are oxcarbazepine, sodium valproate and topiramate.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".