ArticleAnnals of clinical and translational neurology2025
The Road Not Taken: Misclassifying an Anti-Seizure Medication as a Failure.
Article in Annals of clinical and translational neurology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo quantify how often anti-seizure medications (ASMs) appear ineffective yet provide benefit when considering seizure frequency (SF) variability.
methodsWe used the CHOCOLATES seizure diary simulator to generate 100,000 patient seizure diaries that reflect natural SF variation in a heterogeneous population. Medication effect was modeled as a 20% average SF reduction (standard deviation 10%). We identified how many patients with an observed ≥ 25% SF increase (apparent worsening) actually had a true ≥ 10% SF reduction (vs. no medication), and how many with an observed ≥ 50% SF reduction (apparent responders) would have shown < 0% reduction if not taking the ASM. We also quantified how many individuals who had apparent worsening were actual worsening (> 0% SF increase vs. no medication).
resultsSimulations closely matched real-world ASM trials, showing a median SF reduction of 36% with ASM versus 17% with placebo; 35% of patients on ASM achieved ≥ 50% SF reduction versus 20% on placebo. Apparent worsening occurred in 12%; among these, 76% were true improvers. Of the apparent responders, 12% were true nonresponders. Only 4% of the individuals with apparent worsening truly worsened compared to no medication.
interpretationSF variability can lead to significant misclassification of ASM benefit. Many patients labeled as having "failed" an ASM trial were likely receiving meaningful benefit and may warrant reconsideration of the medication. Prospective clinical studies are needed to determine how best to account for SF variability and refine the interpretation of treatment response in epilepsy management.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.