Antiepileptic Drugs to Prevent Seizures After Spontaneous Intracerebral Hemorrhage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Purpose- We sought to evaluate the available literature to determine whether primary seizure prevention with antiepileptic drugs reduces the risk of poor outcomes and clinically relevant seizures among adult patients with spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage. Methods- Meta-analysis of observational studies and randomized controlled trials evaluating the use of any antiepileptic drug for primary seizure prevention among adult (≥18 years) patients with spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage. The primary end point was poor clinical outcome at the longest recorded follow-up, defined as either a high (>3) modified Rankin Scale score or all-cause mortality during follow-up if the modified Rankin Scale score was not recorded. Early and late seizures were secondary outcomes. A random mixed effects model was used to estimate the pooled odds ratio of outcomes and associated 95% CI. Results- We identified 7 studies with a total of 3241 patients for analysis of the primary outcome and 4 studies with a total of 1861 patients for analysis of the secondary outcomes. Overall, the use of antiepileptic drugs was not associated with a high Rankin Scale or all-cause mortality (odds ratio: 0.99; 95% CI, 0.66-1.49) or incident seizures (odds ratio: 0.89; 95% CI, 0.52-1.51) at the longest recorded follow-up time. Conclusions- The use of antiepileptic drugs as primary prevention among adult patients with spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage is not associated with improved neurological function during long-term follow-up. Future studies should focus on the preventive use of distinct antiepileptic agents among patients at high risk of both seizures and poor outcomes.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.010 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".