ArticleJournal of neuroscience methods2020
Automated computation and analysis of accuracy metrics in stereoencephalography.
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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of robotic and manual implantation of intracerebral electrodes: a single-centre, single-blinded, randomised controlled trial.Scientific reports · 2021Trial
- Mapping white matter tracts with SEEG electrodes.Epilepsia · 2026Article
- Stereoelectroencephalography for drug resistant epilepsy: precision and complications in stepwise improvement of frameless implantation.Acta neurochirurgica · 2025Article
- Frameless Stereotaxy in Stereoelectroencephalography Using Intraoperative Computed Tomography.Brain sciences · 2025Article
- Implantation accuracy of novel polyimide stereotactic electroencephalographic depth electrodes-a human cadaveric study.Frontiers in medical technology · 2024Article
- Patient-specific prediction of SEEG electrode bending for stereotactic neurosurgical planning.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
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
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.