MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4306725798 · doi:10.1093/brain/awac380

Randomized placebo-controlled crossover trial of memantine in children with epileptic encephalopathy

2022· article· en· W4306725798 on OpenAlexafffund
Katharina Schiller, Saoussen Berrahmoune, Christelle Dassi, Isabelle Corriveau, Taghreed A. Ayash, Bradley Osterman, Chantal Poulin, Michael Shevell, Elisabeth Simard‐Tremblay, Guillaume Sébire, Kenneth A. Myers

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEpilepsy research and treatment
Canadian institutionsMontreal Children's HospitalMcGill University Health CentreMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
FundersSavoy FoundationInstitut de recherche, Centre universitaire de santé McGill
KeywordsMemantinePlaceboRandomized controlled trialCrossover studyMedicineClinical Global ImpressionAnesthesiaNeuropsychologyEncephalopathyPsychologyPediatricsInternal medicineDementiaPsychiatryCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Memantine is an N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonist, approved for dementia treatment. There is limited evidence of memantine showing benefit for paediatric neurodevelopmental phenotypes, but no randomized placebo-controlled trials in children with developmental and epileptic encephalopathy. In this randomized double-blind placebo-controlled crossover trial (Trial registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03779672), patients with developmental and epileptic encephalopathy received memantine and placebo, each for a 6-week period separated by a 2-week washout phase. Electroencephalography, seizure diary, patient caregivers' global impression, serum inflammatory markers and neuropsychological evaluation were performed at baseline and after each treatment phase. The primary outcome measure was classification as a 'responder', defined as ≥2 of: >50% seizure frequency reduction, electroencephalography improvement, caregiver clinical impression improvement or clear neuropsychological testing improvement. Thirty-one patients (13 females) enrolled. Two patients withdrew prior to initiating medication and two (twins) had to be removed from analysis. Of the remaining 27 patients, nine (33%) were classified as responders to memantine versus two (7%) in the placebo group (P < 0.02). Electroencephalography improvement was seen in eight patients on memantine compared to two on placebo (P < 0.04). Seizure improvement was observed in eight patients on memantine and two on placebo (P < 0.04). Caregivers reported overall clinical improvement in 10 patients on memantine compared to seven on placebo (not significant). Statistical analysis of neuropsychological evaluation suggested improvements in symptoms of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and autism. Memantine is a safe and effective treatment for children with developmental and epileptic encephalopathy, having the potential to improve both seizure control and cognitive function.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.002

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations27
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrainSame topicEpilepsy research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207