Prediction of antiepileptic drug treatment outcomes using machine learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective . Antiepileptic drug (AED) treatments produce inconsistent outcomes, often necessitating patients to go through several drug trials until a successful treatment can be found. This study proposes the use of machine learning techniques to predict epilepsy treatment outcomes of commonly used AEDs. Approach . Machine learning algorithms were trained and evaluated using features obtained from intracranial electroencephalogram (iEEG) recordings of the epileptiform discharges observed in Mecp2-deficient mouse model of the Rett Syndrome. Previous work have linked the presence of cross-frequency coupling ( I CFC ) of the delta (2–5 Hz) rhythm with the fast ripple (400–600 Hz) rhythm in epileptiform discharges. Using the I CFC to label post-treatment outcomes we compared support vector machines (SVMs) and random forest (RF) machine learning classifiers for providing likelihood scores of successful treatment outcomes. Main results . (a) There was heterogeneity in AED treatment outcomes, (b) machine learning techniques could be used to rank the efficacy of AEDs by estimating likelihood scores for successful treatment outcome, (c) I CFC features yielded the most effective a priori identification of appropriate AED treatment, and (d) both classifiers performed comparably. Significance . Machine learning approaches yielded predictions of successful drug treatment outcomes which in turn could reduce the burdens of drug trials and lead to substantial improvements in patient quality of life.
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 | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".