Low-dose topiramate in adults with treatment-resistant partial-onset seizures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Based on dose predictions from animal and human volunteer studies, most patients enrolled in initial randomized controlled trials of topiramate as adjunctive therapy in adults with partial-onset seizures were randomized to >or= 600 mg/day topiramate. Subsequent experience suggests that dosage needs were overestimated. This double-blind, placebo-controlled study evaluated 200 mg/day topiramate in adults with treatment-resistant partial-onset seizures receiving a concurrent enzyme-inducing antiepileptic agent (carbamazepine). MATERIALS AND METHODS: After a 4-week baseline, 263 adults receiving carbamazepine who had at least three partial-onset seizures during the baseline period were randomized to placebo or one of two topiramate 200 mg/day treatment arms: topiramate escalated weekly 25 mg/day(8-week escalation) or 50 mg/day(4-week escalation). Therapy was then maintained for the remainder of the 12-week double-blind study. RESULTS: Median percent reduction in seizure frequency from baseline to study end was 44% with topiramate and 20% with placebo (P or=10% incidence in topiramate-treated patients) were somnolence, fatigue, paresthesia, nervousness and anorexia; 8% of topiramate-treated patients and 2% of placebo-treated patients discontinued because of adverse events. As a result of the low incidence of adverse events, differences between titration rates in terms of tolerability were not detected. CONCLUSION: Topiramate 200 mg/day is an appropriate target dose as adjunctive therapy in adults with treatment-resistant partial-onset seizures, even when receiving an enzyme-inducing agent; 100 mg/day also appears to be effective. A significant therapeutic effect may be seen in the second week of treatment with a dose of 100 mg/day.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".