Visual Defects Associated with Vigabatrin: A Study of Epileptic Argentine Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to assess visual alterations in a population of Argentine patients treated with the antiepileptic drug vigabatrin. METHODS: Twenty patients receiving vigabatrin and 15 patients receiving carbamazepine were examined with automated perimetry using a Humphrey 120-point full screening strategy. In addition, scotopic flash electroretinograms were performed. RESULTS: Of 20 patients treated with vigabatrin, two were unable to cooperate with testing. Of the remaining 18 patients, all but two showed at least one non-detected point inside the central 40 degrees of the visual field of each eye. Of the 15 carbamazepine-treated patients, three were unable to perform the study. None of the remaining 12 patients showed visual field defects. Both a- and b-wave amplitudes of the scotopic electroretinogram were significantly reduced in 12 patients receiving vigabatrin. CONCLUSIONS: Visual field defects among patients on vigabatrin therapy may occur with a higher frequency than previously recognized. The Humphrey 120-points full field screening test and electroretinography are useful tools to assess the visual dysfunction associated with 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".