MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402081744 · doi:10.1016/j.yebeh.2024.110024

Cognitive outcomes after fetal exposure to carbamazepine, lamotrigine, valproate or levetiracetam monotherapy: Data from the EURAP neurocognitive extension protocol

2024· article· en· W4402081744 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Susanna Stjerna, Yfke Huber‐Mollema, Torbjörn Tomson, Emilio Perucca, Dina Battino, John Craig, Anne Sabers, Sanjeev V. Thomas, Frank Vajda, Eija Gaily

Bibliographic record

VenueEpilepsy & Behavior · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmacological Effects and Toxicity Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSanofi-Aventis DeutschlandAlereSanofiUCB PharmaUniversity of Colorado BoulderSierra OncologyGlaxoSmithKline
KeywordsLamotrigineLevetiracetamNeurocognitiveCarbamazepineEpilepsyMedicineCognitionAnesthesiaPsychiatryPsychologyPharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Prenatal exposure to antiseizure medications (ASMs) has been associated with an increased risk of major malformations and neurodevelopmental disorders, with the latter being mainly associated with valproate (VPA). Our aim was to compare neurocognitive outcome at age 6-7 years in children exposed prenatally to lamotrigine (LTG), carbamazepine (CBZ), valproate (VPA) or levetiracetam (LEV) monotherapy. METHODS: Eligible mother-child pairs were identified from the observational prospective multinational EURAP cohort study. Assessor-blinded testing was conducted at age 6-7 years using WISC-III and NEPSY-II. Verbal IQ (VIQ), performance IQ (PIQ), full scale IQ (FSIQ) and performance in neuropsychological tasks were compared across ASM groups by ANOVA. Scores were adjusted for maternal IQ, paternal education, maternal epilepsy type and child sex. RESULTS: Of 169 children enrolled in the study, 162 (LTG n = 80, CBZ n = 37, VPA n = 27, LEV n = 18) had sufficient data from WISC-III, NEPSY-II or both, and were included in the analyses. Observed (unadjusted) PIQ and FSIQ did not differ across exposure groups, but a difference was identified for VIQ (P<0.05), with children exposed to VPA having lower scores than children exposed to LEV (P<0.05) and children from all groups combined (P<0.01). Adjusted VIQ, PIQ and FSIQ scores did not differ significantly across groups, but VPA-exposed children had borderline significantly lower adjusted VIQ scores than children from all groups combined (P=0.051). VPA-exposed children had lower scores in comprehension of instructions before and after adjustment for confounding variables than children exposed to LTG (P<0.001), LEV (P<0.01) or children from all groups combined (p < 0.001). The VPA-exposed group also had lower scores in immediate and delayed memory for faces compared to children exposed to CBZ (P<0.05 and P<0.001, respectively) and LTG (P<0.05 and P<0.02, respectively), and children from all groups combined (P<0.02 and P<0.001, respectively). LEV-exposed children had lower scores in delayed memory for names than children exposed to LTG (P<0.001), CBZ (P<0.001), VPA (P<0.05) and children from all groups combined (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with previous reports, our results provide evidence for an adverse effect of prenatal exposure to valproate on verbal development. Our finding of relatively weaker performance of VPA-exposed children compared to other ASM exposures in both comprehension of instructions and face memory also suggest that children of mothers treated with VPA are at increased risk for compromised memory functions or altered processing of socially relevant information.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations9
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEpilepsy & BehaviorSame topicPharmacological Effects and Toxicity StudiesFrench-language works237,207