MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392712618 · doi:10.1177/15357597241237373

Step Climb Dosing Guidance From Simulation Studies on Lamotrigine Concentration Changes During Pregnancy

2024· article· en· W4392712618 on OpenAlexaff
Eliane Kobayashi

Bibliographic record

VenueEpiliepsy currents/Epilepsy currents · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmacological Effects and Toxicity Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDosingClimbLamotriginePregnancyMedicineComputer sciencePharmacologyPsychiatryEngineeringBiologyEpilepsy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Empiric Dosing Strategies to Predict Lamotrigine Concentrations During Pregnancy Barry JM, French JA, Pennell PB, Karanam A, Harden CL, Birnbaum AK. Pharmacotherapy . 2023;43(10):998-1006. doi: 10.1002/phar.2856 . PMID: 37475496 Introduction: Maintaining seizure control with lamotrigine is complicated by altered pharmacokinetics and existence of subpopulations in whom clearance increases or remains constant during pregnancy. Objective: Our objective was to characterize the potential for particular dosing scenarios to lead to increased seizure risk or toxicity. Methods: Lamotrigine pharmacokinetic parameters obtained from our previous study were applied to a one-compartment model structure with subpopulations (75:25%) exhibiting different clearance changes. A single-patient simulation was conducted with typical pharmacokinetic parameter values from each subpopulation. Population-level simulations (N = 48,000) included six dosing scenarios and considered four preconception doses using the R package mrgsolve (Metrum Research Group). Thresholds for efficacy and toxicity were selected as drug concentration that are 65% lower than preconception concentrations and doubling of preconception concentrations, respectively. Results: Individual simulation results demonstrated that without dose increases, concentrations fell below 0.65 at 6-8 weeks in the high clearance change (HC) subpopulation, depending on preconception clearance. While no simulated dosing regimen allowed all women in both subpopulations to maintain preconception concentrations, some regimens provided a more balanced risk profile than others. Predicted concentrations suggested potential increased seizure risk for 7%-100% of women in the HC group depending on preconception dose and subpopulation. Additionally, in 63% of dosing scenarios for women with low clearance change (LC), there was an increased risk of toxicity (34%-100% of women). Significance: A substantial percentage of simulated individuals had concentrations low enough to potentially increase seizure risk or high enough to create toxicity. Early clearance changes indicate possible subpopulation categorization if therapeutic drug monitoring is conducted in the first trimester. An arbitrary “one-size-fits-all” philosophy may not work well for lamotrigine dosing adjustments during pregnancy and reinforces the need for therapeutic drug monitoring until a patient is determined to be in the LC or HC group.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.323 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEpiliepsy currents/Epilepsy currentsSame topicPharmacological Effects and Toxicity StudiesFrench-language works237,207