MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2326440885 · doi:10.1093/neuonc/nou253.15

ED-15 * LONG-TERM PROPHYLACTIC ANTIEPILEPTIC DRUGS USE IN PATIENTS WITH GLIOMAS: A 7 YEAR RETROSPECTIVE ANALYSIS IN A TERTIARY CARE CENTER

2014· article· en· W2326440885 on OpenAlexaff
S. LaPointe, Marie Florescu, Dang Khoa Nguyen, C. Djeffal, K. Bélanger

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuro-Oncology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsHôpital Notre-Dame
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRetrospective cohort studyPerioperativeNeurologyProphylactic treatmentEpilepsyEpilepsy surgeryPediatricsSurgeryAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: American Academy of Neurology's 2000 practice parameter do not support routine use of prophylactic antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) in newly diagnosed brain tumors. If used in the perioperative setting, they should be discontinued after the first postoperative week. However, it remains unclear whether such recommendations are followed. OBJECTIVE: To compare our use of long-term prophylactic AEDs in patients with gliomas to published practice guidelines by the AAN. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed on 578 glioma cases evaluated in a single tertiary care center from 2006-2013. Data collected included demographic factors, surgical procedure and tumor characteristics. Seizures and AED use were assessed at surgery, 3 months post-operatively and death/last visit/16 months. Long-term prophylactic AED use was defined as continued use of AED at 3 months post-surgery in the absence of seizures. Patients were divided into three groups at surgery: seizure-free with and without prophylactic AEDs, and seizure-patients. Survival, prophylaxis efficacy and factors influencing its use were calculated. RESULTS: Out of 578 patients operated between 2006-2013, 330(57.1%) were seizure-naïve pre-operatively. 205/330(62.1%) received prophylactic AED at surgery. 96/205(46.9%) 95%CI(40.2-54.7) were still on AED 3 months post-surgery (median use = 58 days; 95%CI(31-152)). Rate of long-term prophylaxis use decreased by 13.5% over 6 years (70.3%-2006;56.8%-2012). Dilantin was the preferred agent in 2006(98.2%) with increasing use of Keppra over the years (44.6%-2012). There were no significant differences in age, histology, localisation and resected status between the seizure-free populations with and without prophylaxis. However, seizure-population had more men (p = 0.0068), younger patients (p < 0.0001), lower-grade gliomas (p = 0.0003) and lived longer (p = 0.0012,HR = 0.5423,95%CI(0.3742, 0.7859)) compared to seizure-free populations. The only predictive factor for prophylactic AEDs use was complete resection (p = 0.0069,OR = 2.0292,95%CI(1.2202, 3.4177)). Prevalence of first seizure was similar in both seizure-free populations (p = 0.9104, HR = 0.9627, 95%CI(0.5153, 1.806)). CONCLUSIONS: In our centre, long-term prophylactic AED use is high, deviating from current AAN Guidelines. Corrective measures are warranted.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.243 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuro-OncologySame topicGlioma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207