Olanzapine vs. magnesium valproate vs. lamotrigine in anti-N-methyl-D-aspartic acid receptor encephalitis: a retrospective study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study aimed to compare the impact of olanzapine, magnesium valproate, and lamotrigine as adjunctive treatments for anti-N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor (NMDAR) encephalitis. And it is expected to add supporting points related to the rebalance of neurotransmitters in the brain through adjuvant therapy in the clinical management of anti-NMDAR encephalitis. METHODS: This retrospective study included patients diagnosed with anti-NMDAR encephalitis who received standardized immunotherapy at Hunan Brain Hospital between January 2018 and December 2020. RESULTS: Compared to the olanzapine group, both the magnesium valproate and lamotrigine groups showed lower scores on the positive and negative symptom scale (PANSS) total score after 3 weeks of treatment (all P < 0.05). The Montreal Cognitive Assessment Scale (MoCA) scores in the magnesium valproate and lamotrigine groups were significantly higher than in the olanzapine group after 3 weeks and 3 months of treatment (all P < 0.05). After 3 months of treatment, the proportions of patients with a modified Rankin scale score (mRS) of 0-1 in the magnesium valproate and lamotrigine groups were significantly higher than in the olanzapine group (all P < 0.05). The electroencephalogram (EEG) abnormality ranks at 3 months were significantly lower in the magnesium valproate and lamotrigine groups compared with the olanzapine group (all P < 0.05). Furthermore, the Glx/Cr ratio significantly decreased after 3 months of treatment (all P < 0.05) in the magnesium valproate and lamotrigine groups, while the Glx/Cr ratio in the olanzapine group showed no significant change (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Compared with olanzapine, the addition of magnesium valproate or lamotrigine to immunotherapy might be associated with a lower PANSS score, higher MoCA score, and lower mRS score. The improvement of neurological functions and cognitive function may be related to the decreased Glx/Cr ratio.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".