ArticleNeurosurgical review2025
Comparison of surgical approaches to the hippocampal formation with artificial intelligence.
Article in Neurosurgical review, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The relatively complex functional anatomy of the mediobasal temporal region makes surgical approaches to this area challenging. Several studies describe various surgical approaches, along with their combinations and modifications, to reach lesions of this region. Some of these surgical approaches have been compared using artificial intelligence-based approaches that can be predicted, classified, and analyzed for complex data. Several surgical approaches, such as anterior transsylvian, trans-superior temporal sulcus, trans-middle temporal gyrus, subtemporal-transparahippocampal, presigmoid-retrolabyrinthine, supratentorial-infraoccipital, and paramedian supracerebellar-transtentorial, were selected for comparison. Magnetic resonance images (MRIs) were taken according to the criteria specified by the Radiology Department. With an open-source software tool, volumetric data from cranial MRIs were segmented and anatomical structures in the main regions were reconstructed. The Q-learning algorithm was used to find pathways similar to these standard surgical pathways. The Q-learning scores among the selected pathways are as follows: anterior transsylvian (Q_A) = 31.01, trans-superior temporal sulcus (Q_B) = 25.00, trans-middle temporal gyrus (Q_C) = 28.92, subtemporal-transparahippocampal (Q_D) = 23.51, presigmoid- retrolabyrinthine (Q_E) = 27.54, supratentorial-infraoccipital (Q_F) = 27.2, and paramedian supracerebellar-transtentorial (Q _G) = 21.04. The Q-value score for the supracerebellar transtentorial approach was the highest among the examined approaches and therefore optimal. A difference was also found between the total risk score of all points with pathways drawn by clinicians and the total risk scores of the pathways formed and followed by Q-learning. Artificial intelligence-based approaches may significantly contribute to the success of the surgical approaches examined. Furthermore, artificial intelligence can contribute to clinical outcomes in both preoperative surgical planning and intraoperative technical equipment-assisted neurosurgery. However, further studies with more detailed data are needed for more sensitive results.
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.