Prader–Willi syndrome: Symptoms and topiramate response in light of genetics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Prader–Willi Syndrome (PWS) is a rare genetic condition, which affects one in 25,000 births and results in various phenotypes. It leads to a wide range of metabolic and endocrine disorders including growth delay, hypogonadism, narcolepsy, lack of satiety and compulsive eating, associated with mild to moderate cognitive impairment. Prognosis is especially determined by the complications of obesity (diabetes, cardiorespiratory diseases) and by severe behavioral disorders marked by impulsivity and compulsion. This heterogeneous clinical picture may lead to mis- or delayed diagnosis of comorbidities. Moreover, when diagnosis is made, treatment remains limited, with high interindividual differences in drug response. This may be due to the underlying genetic variability of the syndrome, which can involve several different genetic mutations, notably deletion or uniparental disomy (UPD) in a region of chromosome 15. Here, we propose to determine whether subjects with PWS differ for clinical phenotype and treatment response depending on the underlying genetic anomaly. Methods We retrospectively included all 24 PWS patients who were referred to the Reference Center for Rare Psychiatric Disorders (GHU Paris Psychiatrie and Neurosciences) between November 2018 and July 2022, with either deletion ( N = 8) or disomy ( N = 16). The following socio-demographic and clinical characteristics were recorded: age, sex, psychiatric and non-psychiatric symptoms, the type of genetic defect, medication and treatment response to topiramate, which was evaluated in terms of eating compulsions and impulsive behaviors. We compared topiramate treatment doses and responses between PWS with deletion and those with disomy. Non-parametric tests were used with random permutations for p -value and bootstrap 95% confidence interval computations. Results First, we found that disomy was associated with a more severe clinical phenotype than deletion. Second, we observed that topiramate was less effective and less tolerated in disomy, compared to deletion. Discussion These results suggest that a pharmacogenomic-based approach may be relevant for the treatment of compulsions in PWS, thus highlighting the importance of personalized medicine for such complex heterogeneous disorders.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".