ArticleSeizure2024
Application of preoperative MRI lesion identification algorithm in pediatric and young adult focal cortical dysplasia-related epilepsy.
Article in Seizure, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Deep learning-based detection of focal cortical dysplasia in children: External validation of the MELD Graph and 3D-nnUNet pipelines.Neuroimage. Reports · 2026Article
- Thalamo-Lesional Connectivity Signatures of Bilateral Tonic-Clonic Seizures in Focal Cortical Dysplasia-Related Epilepsy.Annals of clinical and translational neurology · 2026Article
- Surgical outcomes for superior frontal sulcus focal cortical dysplasia-related epilepsy.Seizure · 2026Article
- AI in epilepsy neuroimaging.Current opinion in neurology · 2026Review
- Mirrored structural symmetry index (VMSSI): a novel approach for diagnosing MR-negative focal cortical dysplasia using structural MRI.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2026Article
- Advanced neuroimaging in pediatric epilepsy surgery: state of the art and future perspectives.Neuroradiology · 2026Review
- Multimodal Imaging in Epilepsy Surgery for Personalized Neurosurgical Planning.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance and generalizability of an automated, interpretable surface-based MRI classifier for the detection of focal cortical dysplasia.
methodsThis was a retrospective cohort incorporating MRIs from the epilepsy surgery (FCD and MRI-negative) and neuroimaging (healthy controls) databases at Children's National Hospital (CNH), and a publicly-available FCD Type II dataset from Bonn, Germany. Clinical characteristics and outcomes were abstracted from patient records and/or existing databases. Subjects were included if they had 3T epilepsy-protocol MRI. Manually-segmented FCD masks were compared to the automated masks generated by the Multi-centre Epilepsy Lesion Detection (MELD) FCD detection algorithm. Sensitivity/specificity were calculated.
resultsFrom CNH, 39 FCD pharmacoresistant epilepsy (PRE) patients, 19 healthy controls, and 19 MRI-negative patients were included. From Bonn, 85 FCD Type II were included, of which 68 passed preprocessing. MELD had varying performance (sensitivity) in these datasets: CNH FCD-PRE (54 %); Bonn (68 %); MRI-negative (44 %). In multivariate regression, FCD Type IIB pathology predicted higher chance of MELD automated lesion detection. All four patients who underwent resection/ablation of MELD-identified clusters achieved Engel I outcome. SIGNIFICANCE: We validate the performance of MELD automated, interpretable FCD classifier in a diverse pediatric cohort with FCD-PRE. We also demonstrate the classifier has relatively good performance in an independent FCD Type II cohort with pediatric-onset epilepsy, as well as simulated real-world value in a pediatric population with MRI-negative PRE.
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.