The Effects of Adjunctive Topiramate on Cognitive Function in Patients with Epilepsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: We investigated possible cognitive effects of topiramate (TPM) in polypharmacy on patients with intractable epilepsy. METHODS: Study 1 evaluated 22 consecutively admitted patients whose antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) on admission to the Montreal Neurological Hospital included TPM. Performance on neuropsychological tests administered on and subsequently off TPM was analyzed. Four patients also were tested before taking TPM, allowing comparisons off, then on, and then off the drug again. Measures included intellectual function, verbal and nonverbal memory, language, word and design fluency, somatosensory sensitivity, and motor skills. In Study 2, 16 patients at the Minnesota Epilepsy Group were tested first off, then on TPM with nine cognitive tasks that measured concentration, verbal fluency, language, and psychomotor speed. RESULTS: In Study 1, significant (p < or = 0.01) improvements were observed off TPM on 13 measures including verbal and nonverbal fluency and certain verbal and perceptual tasks. Notably, verbal learning and memory were unaffected; a limited effect was observed on nonverbal memory. Patients tested 3 times scored better in both tests off TPM compared with on this drug. In Study 2, declines on TPM were observed on all measures, significantly (p < or = 0.05) for tests of fluency, sustained concentration, and visual motor processing speed. CONCLUSIONS: TPM was associated with declines in fluency, attention/concentration, processing speed, language skills, and perception; working memory but not retention was affected. As the two studies used an opposite order of testing on versus off TPM, our results clearly show a performance decrement while patients are taking TPM, without respect to which condition is tested first.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".