C.3 Retrospective study of sulthiame in treatment of pediatric epilepsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: This retrospective study assessed the efficacy and tolerability of sulthiame as a treatment in children with epilepsy. In Canada, sulthiame is only available through Health Canada’s Special Access Program. Methods: Patients who received sulthiame at the Montreal Children’s Hospital from April 2012 to March 2023 were included. Patients’ medical charts were reviewed, and clinical data was extracted from neurology clinic notes and electroencephalogram (EEG) reports. Efficacy was assessed by comparing seizure frequency and frequency of EEG epileptiform abnormalities before and after initiating sulthiame, while also noting any reported changes in cognition or behaviour. Results: Sixteen patients were included (10 males, 6 females), all of whom had drug-resistant epilepsy and continuous spike-wave in sleep (CSWS) on EEG. Sulthiame starting dose ranged from 0.74 to 6.75 mg/kg/day. Improvement, either in terms of seizure control, cognition, or reduction in EEG epileptiform abnormalities, was reported in 8/16 children (50%). Two patients (13%) became seizure free, while three more (19%) had reduced seizure frequency. Three other patients (19%) had reported improvements in concentration, learning abilities or behaviour. No serious adverse event was reported. Conclusions: These data indicate that sulthiame is effective and well-tolerated in children with CSWS, regardless of the etiology and type of epilepsy.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".