Reduced Visual Function Associated with Infantile Spasms in Children on Vigabatrin Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To use visual evoked potential (VEP) testing to determine whether visual deficits are present in children with a history of vigabatrin use. METHODS: Contrast sensitivity and visual acuity were assessed by visual evoked potential testing and compared between 28 children (mean age, 4.90 +/- 4.92 years) with seizure disorders who had taken vigabatrin and 14 typically developing children (mean age, 3.14 +/- 1.70 years). Exclusion criteria were heritable eye disease, suspected cortical visual impairment, nystagmus, and prematurity >2 weeks. The effects of the following factors on contrast sensitivity and visual acuity were examined: type of seizure (infantile spasms versus other), ERG result, duration of vigabatrin therapy, cumulative dosage of vigabatrin, and other seizure medications (other versus no other medication). RESULTS: Contrast sensitivity and visual acuity were reduced in vigabatrin-treated children with infantile spasms compared with vigabatrin-treated children with other seizure disorders and typically developing control subjects. The other factors examined had no significant effect on contrast sensitivity or visual acuity, with adjustment for seizure type. CONCLUSIONS: Children with infantile spasms on vigabatrin may have compromised visual function, even in the absence of suspected cortical visual impairment. The children tested in the present study have reduced vision, probably associated with infantile spasms rather than 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.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".