Valproic Acid–Associated Hyperammonemia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hyperammonemia is an adverse effect that poses clinical uncertainty around valproic acid (VPA) use. The prevalence of symptomatic and asymptomatic hyperammonemia and its relationship to VPA concentration is not well established. There is also no clear guidance regarding its management. This results in variability in the monitoring and treatment of VPA-induced hyperammonemia. To inform clinical practice, this systematic review aims to summarize evidence available around VPA-associated hyperammonemia and its prevalence, clinical outcomes, and management. METHODS: An electronic search was performed through Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Web of Science, and PsycINFO using search terms that identified hyperammonemia in patients receiving VPA. Two reviewers independently performed primary title and abstract screening with a third reviewer resolving conflicting screening results. This process was repeated during the full-text review process. RESULTS: A total of 240 articles were included. Prevalence of asymptomatic hyperammonemia (5%-73%) was higher than symptomatic hyperammonemia (0.7%-22.2%) and occurred within the therapeutic range of VPA serum concentration. Various risk factors were identified, including concomitant medications, liver injury, and defects in carnitine metabolism. With VPA discontinued, most symptomatic patients returned to baseline mental status with normalized ammonia level. There was insufficient data to support routine monitoring of ammonia level for VPA-associated hyperammonemia. CONCLUSIONS: Valproic acid-associated hyperammonemia is a common adverse effect that may occur within therapeutic range of VPA. Further studies are required to determine the benefit of routine ammonia level monitoring and to guide the management of VPA-associated hyperammonemia.
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 | 0.005 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".