Infantile Spasms and Trisomy 21: Unfavorable Outcomes with First-line Vigabatrin Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Among children with infantile spasms (ISs), those with trisomy 21 (T21) and those with normal development at onset and no identifiable etiology (previously referred to as "idiopathic") are expected to have relatively favorable outcomes. The study objective is to determine if differences exist in treatment response, relapse, and subsequent epilepsy between these two groups when vigabatrin is used as first-line treatment. METHODS: In this retrospective study, patients were classified into the following groups and clinical features were compared: T21 (n = 24) and IS with normal development at onset and no identified etiology (n = 40; control group). RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the age of IS onset, sex distribution, or treatment lag between the groups. The T21 compared to the control group required a higher mean number of anti-seizure therapies (3.6 vs. 1.9, p < 0.001), had more relapses [10 (42%) vs. 4 (10%), p < 0.005)], and had higher risk of subsequent epilepsy [11 (46%) vs. 8 (20%), p < 0.003]. Relapses were often delayed in the T21 group, with a mean of 8 months after IS cessation. CONCLUSION: Our results differ from most studies using steroids as first-line treatment where the groups were shown to have similar treatment response and T21 patients had a low risk of relapse and subsequent epilepsy. Therefore, our results suggest that vigabatrin as first-line treatment in T21 with IS may be less favorable than steroids.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".