Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35266138›Full record

ArticleEpilepsia2022

Machine learning approaches for imaging-based prognostication of the outcome of surgery for mesial temporal lobe epilepsy.

Benjamin Sinclair, Varduhi Cahill, Jarrel Seah, Andy Kitchen, Lucy E Vivash, Zhibin Chen, Charles B Malpas, Marie F O'Shea, Patricia M Desmond, Rodney J Hicks and 8 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Epilepsia, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
4.3field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Machine-learning methods for epilepsy diagnosis and therapeutic prevention: advances, setbacks, and opportunities.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2026
    Review
  2. Review
  3. Seminars in epileptology: Presurgical epilepsy evaluation.Epileptic disorders : international epilepsy journal with videotape · 2025
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

18 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Benjamin SinclairDepartment of Neuroscience, Central Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0850-3644
Varduhi CahillDepartment of Medicine, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Jarrel SeahDepartment of Radiology, Alfred Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Andy KitchenDepartment of Neuroscience, Central Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Lucy E VivashDepartment of Neuroscience, Central Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1182-0907
Zhibin ChenDepartment of Neuroscience, Central Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Charles B MalpasDepartment of Neuroscience, Central Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0534-3718
Marie F O'SheaMelbourne School of Psychological Sciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Patricia M DesmondDepartment of Radiology, Royal Melbourne Hospital, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Rodney J HicksPeter MacCallum Cancer Centre and Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Andrew P MorokoffDepartment of Surgery, Royal Melbourne Hospital, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
James A KingDepartment of Surgery, Royal Melbourne Hospital, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Gavin C FabinyiDepartment of Surgery, Austin Hospital, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Andrew H KayeDepartment of Neurosurgery, Hadassah Hebrew University Hospital, Jerusalem, Israel.
Patrick KwanDepartment of Neuroscience, Central Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-7310-276X
Samuel F BerkovicComprehensive Epilepsy Program, Austin Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4580-841X
Meng LawDepartment of Neuroscience, Central Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Terence J O'BrienDepartment of Neuroscience, Central Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7198-8621
The Royal Melbourne Hospital · AUThe University of Melbourne · AUAlfred Health · AUHebrew University of Jerusalem · ILMonash University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesAround 30% of patients undergoing surgical resection for drug-resistant mesial temporal lobe epilepsy (MTLE) do not obtain seizure freedom. Success of anterior temporal lobe resection (ATLR) critically depends on the careful selection of surgical candidates, aiming at optimizing seizure freedom while minimizing postoperative morbidity. Structural MRI and FDG-PET neuroimaging are routinely used in presurgical assessment and guide the decision to proceed to surgery. In this study, we evaluate the potential of machine learning techniques applied to standard presurgical MRI and PET imaging features to provide enhanced prognostic value relative to current practice.

methodsEighty two patients with drug resistant MTLE were scanned with FDG-PET pre-surgery and T1-weighted MRI pre- and postsurgery. From these images the following features of interest were derived: volume of temporal lobe (TL) hypometabolism, % of extratemporal hypometabolism, presence of contralateral TL hypometabolism, presence of hippocampal sclerosis, laterality of seizure onset volume of tissue resected and % of temporal lobe hypometabolism resected. These measures were used as predictor variables in logistic regression, support vector machines, random forests and artificial neural networks.

resultsIn the study cohort, 24 of 82 (28.3%) who underwent an ATLR for drug-resistant MTLE did not achieve Engel Class I (i.e., free of disabling seizures) outcome at a minimum of 2 years of postoperative follow-up. We found that machine learning approaches were able to predict up to 73% of the 24 ATLR surgical patients who did not achieve a Class I outcome, at the expense of incorrect prediction for up to 31% of patients who did achieve a Class I outcome. Overall accuracies ranged from 70% to 80%, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of .75-.81. We additionally found that information regarding overall extent of both total and significantly hypometabolic tissue resected was crucial to predictive performance, with AUC dropping to .59-.62 using presurgical information alone. Incorporating the laterality of seizure onset and the choice of machine learning algorithm did not significantly change predictive performance. SIGNIFICANCE: Collectively, these results indicate that "acceptable" to "good" patient-specific prognostication for drug-resistant MTLE surgery is feasible with machine learning approaches utilizing commonly collected imaging modalities, but that information on the surgical resection region is critical for optimal prognostication.

Indexed as

Drug Resistant EpilepsyEpilepsy, Temporal LobeFluorodeoxyglucose F18HumansMachine LearningMagnetic Resonance ImagingSeizuresTreatment OutcomeFluorodeoxyglucose F18epilepsyFDG-PETmachine learningsurgery

Identifiers

PMID35266138
PMCPMC9545680
OpenAlexW4220699890

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.