Peer Review #2 of "Lacosamide adjunctive therapy for partial-onset seizures: a meta-analysis (v0.1)"
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lacosamide adjunctive therapy for partial-onset seizures: a meta-analysis Background: The relative efficacy and safety of lacosamide as adjunctive therapy compared to other antiepileptic drugs has not been well established.Objective: To determine if lacosamide provides improved efficacy and safety, reduced length of hospital stay and improved quality of life compared with other anti-epileptic therapies for adults with partial-onset seizures.Data Sources: A systematic review of the medical literature using Medline (1946 -Week 4, 2012), EMBASE (1980 -Week 3, 2012), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Issue 1 of 12, January 2012).Additional studies were identified (through to February 7, 2012) by searching bibliographies, the FDA drug approval files, clinical trial registries and major national and international neurology meeting abstracts.No restrictions on publication status or language were applied.Study Selection: Randomized controlled trials of lacosamide in adults with partial-onset seizures were included.Data Extraction:Study selection, extraction and risk of bias assessment were performed independently by two authors.Authors of studies were contacted for missing data.Data Synthesis: All pooled analyses used the random effects model.Results: Three trials (1311 patients) met inclusion criteria.Lacosamide increased the 50% responder rate compared to placebo (RR 1.68 [95% CI 1.36 to 2.08]; I 2 = 0%).Discontinuation due to adverse events was statistically significantly higher in the lacosamide arm (RR3.13 [95% CI 1.94 to 5.06]; I 2 = 0%).Individual adverse events (ataxia, dizziness, fatigue, and nausea) were also significantly higher in the lacosamide group.Limitations: All dosage arms from the included studies were pooled to make a single pair-wise comparison to placebo.Selective reporting of outcomes was found in all of the included RCTs.Conclusions: Lacosamide as adjunctive therapy in patients with partial-onset seizures increases the 50% responder rate but with significantly more adverse events compared to placebo
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 | 0.046 | 0.223 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.026 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.159 | 0.019 |
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".