MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3028192473

The Efficacy and Tolerability of Levetiracetam as a First Line Monotherapy in Childhood Epilepsy.

2020· article· en· W3028192473 on OpenAlexaff
A Connolly, Mary Quirke, S.S. Crowley, Eamonn Hayes, Ciarán Hurley, Maria Keegan, Gregory Griffin, David Webb

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEpilepsy research and treatment
Canadian institutionsTrinity College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTolerabilityLevetiracetamMedicineEpilepsyPediatricsAdverse effectCohortRetrospective cohort studyNeurologyInternal medicinePsychiatry
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction To examine efficacy and tolerability of Levetiracetam monotherapy as a first line agent in a national cohort of children with epilepsy, naïve to anti-epileptic medication. Methods A retrospective analysis of children with epilepsy who attended 4 Irish tertiary Paediatric Neurology Clinics (2009-2015) started on Levetiracetam as a first line monotherapy. Results 182 children were identified aged one month to 16 years (mean 6.2 years (SD=5.1) Retention at 6 and 12 months was 88% (n=161) and 83% (n=145) respectively. 75% (n=104) achieved seizure freedom or > 50% improvement in seizure control at 12 months. 30% (n=55) experienced ≥1 adverse effect with aggression (12%; n=21) the most frequent. Treatment was discontinued in 16% (n=29) because of intolerance. Underlying conditions and epilepsy type were not found to influence efficacy or tolerability. Conclusion Levetiracetam monotherapy was observed as effective and safe for children with epilepsy although side effects limit tolerance in a sizeable minority.

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)0.002
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicEpilepsy research and treatment→French-language works237,207→