MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408161746 · doi:10.1111/epi.18329

Dravet syndrome: From neurodevelopmental to neurodegenerative disease?

2025· article· en· W4408161746 on OpenAlexaff
Arunan Selvarajah, Andrea Sabo, Carolina Gorodetsky, Paula Marques, Ilakkiah Chandran, Miles D. Thompson, Quratulain Zulfiqar Ali, Mary Pat McAndrews, Maria Carmela Tartaglia, Victor Lira, Linda Huh, Mary Connolly, Arezoo Rezazadeh, Farah Qaiser, Tadeu A. Fantaneanu, Monica Duong, Karen Barboza, Lysa Boissé Lomax, Luciana Midori Inuzuka, Kette D. Valente, Jack Arbinuch, M. E. Crespo Espindola, Eliana Garzón, Gianluca Sorrento, Mary Anne Meskis, Nicole Villas, Veronica Hood, Marta González, Elena Cardenal‐Muñoz, José Ángel Aibar, Christine Linehan, Sophie Höhn, Stéphane Auvin, Orrin Devinsky, Ryan K. C. Yuen, Anne T. Berg, Babak Taati, Alfonso Fasano, Danielle M. Andrade

Bibliographic record

VenueEpilepsia · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEpilepsy research and treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaBC Children's HospitalUniversity of TorontoSickKids FoundationUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of British ColumbiaHospital for Sick ChildrenKingston General HospitalOttawa HospitalToronto Western Hospital
FundersDravet Syndrome Foundation
KeywordsDravet syndromeDiseaseMedicineNeuroscienceEpilepsyPsychiatryPsychologyPediatricsPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Dravet syndrome (DS) is a severe developmental and epileptic encephalopathy caused by SCN1A haploinsufficiency in the majority of cases. Caregivers of adults with DS often complain about the loss of previously acquired skills. We set out to explore these perceptions and determine whether abnormalities reported were detectable in validated tests. We also investigated possible correlations between symptoms, age, and exposure to sodium channel blockers (SCBs). METHODS: This cross-sectional, multicenter study used the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, 3rd edition (raw scores) for behavior analyses and Moss-Psychiatric Assessment Schedules checklist to screen for psychiatric symptoms. The Social Communication Questionnaire screened for social communication deficits. Parkinsonian features were evaluated with the modified Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale. For gait evaluation, we validated the use of home videos, using instrumental gait analysis in a subgroup of patients, and then used the home videos for the remainder. RESULTS: A total of 92 patients were enrolled (age range = 18-51 years, mean = 27.93 ± 8.59 years). Sixty percent of caregivers observed a decline in previously acquired skills, including intelligence, speech, interaction with others, ability to climb stairs and walk without support, and hand coordination. Adaptive skills, parkinsonian symptoms, and gait were worse in older patients and those exposed to SCBs for longer periods of time. Fourteen percent of patients screened positive for affective disorders, 11.6% for dementia, and 10.5% for a psychotic disorder. Fifty-three percent screened positive for social communication deficits. SIGNIFICANCE: This is the largest group of adults with DS to be systematically evaluated. They had severe nonseizure symptoms. Older age and longer use of SCBs were associated with worse adaptive skills, gait, and parkinsonism. Some older adults screened positive for depression and dementia. Caregivers identified functional decline in activities of daily living (ADLs). Taken together, the risk of dementia, parkinsonian gait, and decline in ability to perform previously mastered ADLs support that some adults with DS may be developing a neurodegenerative disorder.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations14
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEpilepsiaSame topicEpilepsy research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207