Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract GABABR-mediated mechanisms have been known for many years to be involved in the genesis and propagation of both TASs126–129 and AASs,78,84 as well as in the associated cognitive impairments.54,79 Moreover, the data reviewed in this chapter indicate that TAS and AAS share the same pharmacological profile, because they share common thalamic circuitry perturbations, notably nRT involvement. However, TAS and AAS phenotypes differ in seizure severity, SWD characteristics, and impairment in learning abilities, mainly because they differ in the other parts of the circuitry involved. In TAS, cognition is not affected because the SWD is constrained within thalamocortical circuits and does not involve limbic circuits. In AAS, on the other hand, cognition is impaired because of the SWD involvement of limbic circuitry that is recruited through cortico-thalamo-hippocampal pathways,130 hence the difference in seizure semiology and cognitive involvement. Because of the demonstrated efficacy of GABABR antagonists in preventing SWDs, the potential of GABABR antagonists as powerful antiabsence drugs has been long proposed,61 yet clinical trials of GABABR are lacking both in TAS and AAS. Frequent refractory seizures and severe impairment in cognition represent the most disabling aspects of pediatric epilepsy and are the major contributors to the burden of illness in children affected by epilepsy.131 Because of data suggesting that atypical absence seizures are independent of their comorbid cognitive deficits, yet both are GABABR dependent,79 there is a clinical imperative to initiate clinical trials of a GABABR antagonist in the AASs observed in Lennox-Gastaut syndrome.119,120
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".