Anticonvulsant Agents for Treatment of Restless Legs Syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Restless Legs Syndrome (RLS) is a neurological disorder primarily treated with pregabalin and gabapentin, followed by dopamine agonists later in the process due to the risk of augmenting RLS symptoms. In addition, clinical reports have disclosed varying degrees of success employing other agents in patients unresponsive to traditional agents. Here, we present a patient who had success in the reduction of RLS symptoms with lamotrigine, a broad-spectrum anticonvulsant. Previously, lamotrigine had been used in 2 trials with successful treatment of RLS. CASE REPORT: We present a 58-year-old right-handed lady with long-standing history of smoking, hypertension, dyslipidaemia, prediabetes, gastro-esophageal reflux disease, asthma, strabismus, uterine cancer, severe and debilitating course of RLS accompanied by unexplained deterioration. The patient initially demonstrated abnormal sensation in all her limbs, which worsened with radiotherapy treatment, and was eventually diagnosed with RLS based on the diagnostic criteria. Subsequent examinations were unremarkable and revealed no further explanation for the deterioration of the RLS symptoms. While the complexity of the patient's medical history had exposed her to a variety of medications, she reported that only lamotrigine, in addition to her original regimen of methadone and pramipexole, offered significant symptomatic relief. It must be noted that no adverse side effects, including impulse-control disorder, were reported by the patient. CONCLUSIONS: We present a case of a woman whose deteriorating symptoms of RLS were successfully alleviated by the administration of lamotrigine. This is only the third case in the literature to have successfully utilized lamotrigine as a treatment option for RLS.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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.
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".