MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409136392 · doi:10.1177/15357597251324016

Out with prolactin, in with neurofilament light and glial fibrillary acidic protein

2025· letter· en· W4409136392 on OpenAlexaff
Danielle M. Andrade

Bibliographic record

VenueEpiliepsy currents/Epilepsy currents · 2025
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEpilepsy research and treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEpilepsyGlial fibrillary acidic proteinCohortPsychogenic diseaseInternal medicineMedicineTraumatic brain injuryGastroenterologyCerebrospinal fluidPathologyPsychologyEndocrinologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Elevated Plasma Neurofilament Light and Glial Fbrillary Acidic Protein in Epilepsy Versus Nonepileptic Seizures and Nonepileptic Disorders. Dobson H, Al Maawali S, Malpas C, Santillo AF, Kang M, Todaro M, Watson R, Yassi N, Blennow K, Zetterberg H, Foster E, Neal A, Velakoulis D, O'Brien TJ, Eratne D, Kwan P. Epilepsia. 2024 Sep;65(9):2751-2763. doi: 10.1111/epi.18065 . Epub 2024 Jul 20. PMID: 39032019. Objective: Research suggests that recurrent seizures may lead to neuronal injury. Neurofilament light chain protein (NfL) and glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) levels increase in cerebrospinal fluid and blood in response to neuroaxonal damage, and they have been hypothesized as potential biomarkers for epilepsy. We examined plasma NfL and GFAP levels and their diagnostic utility in differentiating patients with epilepsy from those with psychogenic nonepileptic seizures (PNES) and other nonepileptic disorders. Methods: We recruited consecutive adults admitted for video-electroencephalographic monitoring and formal neuropsychiatric assessment. NfL and GFAP levels were quantified and compared between different patient groups and an age-matched reference cohort (n = 1926) and correlated with clinical variables in patients with epilepsy. Results: A total of 138 patients were included, of whom 104 were diagnosed with epilepsy, 22 with PNES, and 12 with other conditions. Plasma NfL and GFAP levels were elevated in patients with epilepsy compared to PNES, adjusted for age and sex (NfL p = .04, GFAP p = .04). A high proportion of patients with epilepsy (20%) had NfL levels above the 95th age-matched percentile compared to the reference cohort (5%). NfL levels above the 95th percentile of the reference cohort had a 95% positive predictive value for epilepsy. Patients with epilepsy who had NfL levels above the 95th percentile were younger than those with lower levels (37.5 vs 43.8 years, p = .03). Significance: An elevated NfL or GFAP level in an individual patient may support an underlying epilepsy diagnosis, particularly in younger adults, and cautions against a diagnosis of PNES alone. Further examination of the association between NfL and GFAP levels and specific epilepsy subtypes or seizure characteristics may provide valuable insights into disease heterogeneity and contribute to the refinement of diagnosis, understanding pathophysiological mechanisms, and formulating treatment approaches.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEpiliepsy currents/Epilepsy currentsSame topicEpilepsy research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207