MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4310991576 · doi:10.1177/15357597221137409

Genetic Mechanisms Behind Severe Psychotic Reactions to Levetiracetam

2022· letter· en· W4310991576 on OpenAlexaff
Danielle M. Andrade

Bibliographic record

VenueEpiliepsy currents/Epilepsy currents · 2022
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEpilepsy research and treatment
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLevetiracetamMedicinePsychiatryEpilepsy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A Pharmacogenomic Assessment of Psychiatric Adverse Drug Reactions to LevetiracetamCampbell C, McCormack M, Patel S, Stapleton C, Bobbili D, Krause R, Depondt C, Sills GJ, Koeleman BP, Striano P, Zara F, Sander JW, Lerche H, Kunz WS, Stefansson K, Stefansson H, Doherty CP, Heinzen EL, Scheffer IE, Goldstein DB, O’Brien T, Cotter D, Berkovic SF, EpiPGX Consortium; Sisodiya SM, Delanty N, Cavalleri GL. Epilepsia. 2022;63(6):1563-1570. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/epi.17228Objective:Levetiracetam (LEV) is an effective antiseizure medicine, but 10%-20% of people treated with LEV report psychiatric side-effects, and up to 1% may have psychotic episodes. Pharmacogenomic predictors of these adverse drug reactions (ADRs) have yet to be identified. We sought to determine the contribution of both common and rare genetic variation to psychiatric and behavioral ADRs associated with LEV.Methods:This case-control study compared cases of LEV-associated behavioral disorder (n = 149) or psychotic reaction (n = 37) to LEV-exposed people with no history of psychiatric ADRs (n = 920). All samples were of European ancestry. We performed genome-wide association study (GWAS) analysis comparing those with LEV ADRs to controls. We estimated the polygenic risk scores (PRS) for schizophrenia and compared cases with LEV-associated psychotic reaction to controls. Rare variant burden analysis was performed using exome sequence data of cases with psychotic reactions (n = 18) and controls (n = 122).Results:Univariate GWAS found no significant associations with either LEV-associated behavioural disorder or LEV-psychotic reaction. PRS analysis showed that cases of LEV-associated psychotic reaction had an increased PRS for schizophrenia relative to controls (p = .0097, estimate = .4886). The rare-variant analysis found no evidence of an increased burden of rare genetic variants in people who had experienced LEV-associated psychotic reaction relative to controls.Significance:The polygenic burden for schizophrenia is a risk factor for LEV-associated psychotic reaction. To assess the clinical utility of PRS as a predictor, it should be tested in an independent and ideally prospective cohort. Larger sample sizes are required for the identification of significant univariate common genetic signals or rare genetic signals associated with psychiatric LEV ADRs.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0090.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEpiliepsy currents/Epilepsy currents→Same topicEpilepsy research and treatment→French-language works237,207→