Does vigabatrin treatment for infantile spasms cause visual field defects? An international multicentre study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The aim of this study was to examine whether vigabatrin treatment had caused visual field defects (VFDs) in children of school age who had received the drug in infancy. METHOD: In total, 35 children (14 males, 21 females; median age 11y, SD 3.4y, range 8-23y) were examined by static Humphrey perimetry, Goldmann kinetic perimetry, or Octopus perimetry. The aetiologies of infantile spasms identified were tuberous sclerosis (n=10), other symptomatic causes (n=3), or cryptogenic (n=22). RESULTS: Typical vigabatrin-attributed VFDs were found in 11 out of 32 (34%) children: in one out of 11 children (9%) who received vigabatrin for <1 year (group 1), in three out of 10 children (30%) who received vigabatrin for 12 to 24 months (group 2), and in seven out of 11 children (63%) who received vigabatrin treatment for longer than 2 years (group 3). VFDs were mild in five and severe in six children. Patients with tuberous sclerosis were at higher risk of VFDs (six out of 10 children). The mean cumulative doses of vigabatrin were 140.5, 758.8, and 2712g in group 1, 2, and 3, respectively. INTERPRETATION: VFDs were found in 34% of the cohort of children in this study. The rate of VFD increased from 9% to 63% as duration of treatment increased. The results of this study showed that the risk-benefit ratio should always be considered when using 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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it