Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32339522›Full record

ArticleJournal of neuroscience methods2020

Automated computation and analysis of accuracy metrics in stereoencephalography.

Alejandro Granados, Roman Rodionov, Vejay Vakharia, Andrew W McEvoy, Anna Miserocchi, Aidan G O'Keeffe, John S Duncan, Rachel Sparks, Sébastien Ourselin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of neuroscience methods, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Patient-specific prediction of SEEG electrode bending for stereotactic neurosurgical planning.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2021
    Article
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

9 authors.

Alejandro GranadosSchool of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, King's College London, UK. Electronic address: alejandro.granados@kcl.ac.uk.
Roman RodionovNational Hospital of Neurology and Neurosurgery, London, UK.
Vejay VakhariaNational Hospital of Neurology and Neurosurgery, London, UK.
Andrew W McEvoyNational Hospital of Neurology and Neurosurgery, London, UK.
Anna MiserocchiNational Hospital of Neurology and Neurosurgery, London, UK.
Aidan G O'KeeffeDept of Statistical Science, University College London, UK.
John S DuncanNational Hospital of Neurology and Neurosurgery, London, UK; Dept of Clin and Experim Epilepsy, UCL Queen Square, Inst of Neurol, UK.
Rachel SparksSchool of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, King's College London, UK.
Sébastien OurselinSchool of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, King's College London, UK.

Funding

Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 203145Z/16/ZWellcome Trust WT106882
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundImplantation accuracy of electrodes during neurosurgical interventions is necessary to ensure safety and efficacy. Typically, metrics are computed by visual inspection which is tedious, prone to inter-/intra-observer variation, and difficult to replicate across sites. NEW

methodWe propose an automated approach for computing implantation metrics and investigate potential sources of error. We focus on accuracy metrics commonly reported in the literature to validate our approach against metrics computed manually including entry point (EP) and target point (TP) localisation errors and angle differences between planned and implanted trajectories in 15 patients with a total of 158 stereoelectroencephalography (SEEG) electrodes. We evaluate the effect of line-of-best-fit approaches, EP definition and lateral versus Euclidean distance on metrics to provide recommendations for reporting implantation accuracy metrics.

resultsWe found no bias between manual and automated approaches for calculating accuracy metrics with limits of agreement of ±1 mm and ±1°. Automated metrics are robust to sources of errors including registration and electrode bending. We observe the highest error in EP deviations of μ = 0.25 mm when the post-implantation CT is used to define the point of entry. COMPARISON WITH EXISTING METHOD(S): We found no reports of automated approaches for quality assessment of SEEG electrode implantation. Neither the choice of metrics nor the possible errors that could occur have been investigated previously.

conclusionsOur automated approach is useful to avoid human errors, unintentional bias and variation that may be introduced when manually computing metrics. Our work is relevant and timely to facilitate comparisons of studies reporting implantation accuracy.

Indexed as

BenchmarkingElectroencephalographyBrainElectrodes, ImplantedHumansStereotaxic TechniquesAccuracy metricsEpilepsySEEG

Identifiers

PMID32339522
PMCPMC7456795

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.