MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Review and meta-analysis of neuropsychological findings in autoimmune limbic encephalitis with autoantibodies against LGI1, CASPR2, and GAD65 and their response to immunotherapy

2022· review· en· W4312084873 on OpenAlexaff
Christoph Mueller, Saskia Elben, Gregory S. Day, Pedro Alves, Julien Hébert, David F. Tang‐Wai, Olga Holtmann, Raffaele Iorio, Daniela Perani, Maarten J. Titulaer, Niels Hansen, Thorsten Bartsch, Andreas Johnen, Zsolt Illés, Leah Borm, Alice Willison, Heinz Wiendl, Sven G. Meuth, Stjepana Kovac, Jens Bölte, Nico Melzer

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Neurology and Neurosurgery · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAutoimmune Neurological Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of Toronto
FundersWestfälische Wilhelms-Universität MünsterBundesministerium für Bildung und ForschungDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsMedicineAutoantibodyLimbic encephalitisAutoimmune encephalitisNeuropsychologyImmunotherapyImmunologyNeurosciencePsychiatryCognitionAntibodyImmune system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: It is assumed that autoimmune limbic encephalitis (ALE) demonstrates distinct neuropsychological manifestations with differential responses to immunotherapy according to which associated autoantibody (AAB), if any, is identified. Towards investigating whether this is the case, this study aims to summarize respective findings from the primary literature on ALE with AABs binding to cell surface neural antigens and ALE with AABs against intracellular neural antigens. METHODS: We chose ALE with AABs against leucine-rich, glioma inactivated protein 1 (LGI1) and contactin-associated protein-like 2 (CASPR2) as the most frequent cell surface membrane antigens, and ALE with AABs to Embryonic Lethal, Abnormal Vision, Like 1 (ELAVL) proteins (anti-Hu) and glutamic acid decarboxylase 65 (GAD65) as the most frequent intracellular neural antigens. The PubMed and Scopus databases were searched on March 1st, 2021 for neuropsychological test and -screening data from patients with ALE of these AAB-types. Findings were reviewed according to AAB-type and immunotherapy status and are presented in a review section and are further statistically evaluated and presented in a meta-analysis section in this publication. RESULTS: Of the 1304 initial hits, 32 studies on ALE with AABs against LGI1, CASPR2, and GAD65 reporting cognitive screening data could be included in a review. In ALE with AABs against LGI1, CASPR2 and GAD65, memory deficits are the most frequently reported deficits. However, deficits in attention and executive functions including working memory, fluency, and psychological function have also been reported. This review shows that ALE patients with AABs against both LGI1 and CASPR2 show higher percentages of neuropsychological deficits compared to ALE patients with AABs against GAD65 before and after initiation of immunotherapy. However, the methodologies used in these studies were heterogenous, and longitudinal studies were not comparable. Moreover, 21 studies including ALE patients with AABs against LGI1 and GAD65 were also suitable for meta-analysis. No suitable study on ALE with AABs against ELAVL proteins could be identified. Meta-Analyses could be executed for cognitive screening data and only partially, due to the small number of studies. However, in statistical analysis no consistent effect of AAB or immunotherapy on performance in cognitive screening tests could be found. CONCLUSION: Currently, there is no definite evidence supporting the notion that different AAB-types of ALE exhibit distinct neuropsychological manifestations and respond differently to immunotherapy. Overall, we could not identify evidence for any effect of immunotherapy on cognition in ALE. More systematic, in-depth and longitudinal neuropsychological assessments of patients with different AAB-types of ALE are required in the future to investigate these aspects.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.794
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.151
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations16
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Neurology and NeurosurgerySame topicAutoimmune Neurological Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207