MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1991874735 · doi:10.1167/7.15.58

Reduction of the Photopic Negative Response (PhNR) in Children with childhood epilepsy on vigabatrin therapy

2010· article· en· W1991874735 on OpenAlexaff
Aphrodite Dracopoulos, Carol A. Westall

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhotopic visionVigabatrinErgElectroretinographyEpilepsyOphthalmologyMedicineRetinalAudiologyPsychiatryAnticonvulsant

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: The antiepileptic drug vigabatrin (VGB) may cause retinal toxicity. The photopic negative response (PhNR) is a negative-going wave that occurs following the b-wave of an electroretinogram (ERG) and is consistent with an origin in ganglion cells. Our purpose was to investigate the PhNR in children with Infantile Spasms (IS) (a childhood epilepsy) on VGB therapy. Methods: Thirty children with IS (age range 3–14 months) were tested before VGB administration (baseline) and every three months for a 10 month duration. Photopic ERGs were recorded to brief white Ganzfeld flashes delivered on a white background. The amplitude of the PhNR before and after VGB was compared. The PhNR amplitude was measured from the baseline to the negative trough between the cone-b wave and subsequent positivity. Results: The mean PhNR amplitude in children with IS was reduced with initiation of VGB (p=0.02). The reduction was more significant than that of other ERGs. Conclusion: The PhNR is reduced in children with IS taking VGB suggesting reduction in inner retina layer function. Future research will confirm whether the PhNR acts as an early ganglion cell marker of VGB-induced retinal toxicity.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.314 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of VisionSame topicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology ResearchFrench-language works237,207