Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22342985›Full record

ReviewNeuropharmacology2013

Defining "epileptogenesis" and identifying "antiepileptogenic targets" in animal models of acquired temporal lobe epilepsy is not as simple as it might seem.

Robert S Sloviter, Argyle V Bumanglag

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Neuropharmacology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

40 citing papers in PubMed, 94 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Pathophysiology of Status Epilepticus Revisited.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. EEG biomarker candidates for the identification of epilepsy.Clinical neurophysiology practice · 2023
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Role of Adenosine in Epilepsy and Seizures.Journal of caffeine and adenosine research · 2020
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Novel therapeutic approaches for disease-modification of epileptogenesis for curing epilepsy.Biochimica et biophysica acta. Molecular basis of disease · 2017
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Robert S SloviterDepartment of Pharmacology, University of Arizona College of Medicine, 1501 N. Campbell Avenue, Tucson, AZ 85724-5050, USA. rssloviter@yahoo.com
Argyle V Bumanglag
University of Arizona · US

Funding

Morehouse School of Medicine Center of Excellence Research Endowment ProgramS21MD000101 · NIMHD · MOREHOUSE SCHOOL OF MEDICINE · PI MONTGOMERY-RICE, VALERIE C. · 2001 to 2015
$74.3M
HIPPOCAMPAL NETWORK STRUCTURE/FUNCTION IN EPILEPSYR01NS018201 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA · PI SLOVITER, ROBERT S · 1985 to 2006
$3.1M
NIMHD NIH HHS S21 MD000101NINDS NIH HHS NS18201NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS018201
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The "latent period" between brain injury and clinical epilepsy is widely regarded to be a seizure-free, pre-epileptic state during which a time-consuming cascade of molecular events and structural changes gradually mediates the process of "epileptogenesis." The concept of the "latent period" as the duration of "epileptogenesis" implies that epilepsy is not an immediate result of brain injury, and that anti-epileptogenic strategies need to target delayed secondary mechanisms that develop sometime after an initial injury. However, depth recordings made directly from the dentate granule cell layers in awake rats after convulsive status epilepticus-induced injury have now shown that whenever perforant pathway stimulation-induced status epilepticus produces extensive hilar neuron loss and entorhinal cortical injury, hyperexcitable granule cells immediately generate spontaneous epileptiform discharges and focal or generalized behavioral seizures. This indicates that hippocampal injury caused by convulsive status epilepticus is immediately epileptogenic and that hippocampal epileptogenesis requires no delayed secondary mechanism. When latent periods do exist after injury, we hypothesize that less extensive cell loss causes an extended period during which initially subclinical focal seizures gradually increase in duration to produce the first clinical seizure. Thus, the "latent period" is suggested to be a state of "epileptic maturation," rather than a prolonged period of "epileptogenesis," and therefore the antiepileptogenic therapeutic window may only remain open during the first week after injury, when some delayed cell death may still be preventable. Following the perhaps unavoidable development of the first focal seizures ("epileptogenesis"), the most fruitful therapeutic strategy may be to interrupt the process of "epileptic maturation," thereby keeping focal seizures focal. This article is part of the Special Issue entitled 'New Targets and Approaches to the Treatment of Epilepsy'.

Indexed as

AnimalsAnticonvulsantsDisease Models, AnimalElectric StimulationEpilepsy, Temporal LobeHippocampusHumansSclerosisSeizuresAnticonvulsants

Identifiers

PMID22342985
PMCPMC3398197
OpenAlexW1965953789

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.