Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40083454›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neurology2025

Computer-assisted stereoelectroencephalography planning: center-specific priors enhance planning.

Debayan Dasgupta, Cameron A Elliott, Aidan G O'Keeffe, Roman Rodionov, Kuo Li, Vejay N Vakharia, Farhan A Mirza, M Zubair Tahir, Martin M Tisdall, Anna Miserocchi and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in neurology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

14 authors.

Debayan DasguptaDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Epilepsy, UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Cameron A ElliottDivision of Neurosurgery, Department of Surgery, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
Aidan G O'KeeffeSchool of Mathematical Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.
Roman RodionovDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Epilepsy, UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Kuo LiDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Epilepsy, UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Vejay N VakhariaDepartment of Neurosurgery, Alder Hey Children's Hospital, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Farhan A MirzaDepartment of Neurosurgery, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, United States.
M Zubair TahirDepartment of Pediatric Neurosurgery, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children, London, United Kingdom.
Martin M TisdallDepartment of Pediatric Neurosurgery, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children, London, United Kingdom.
Anna MiserocchiVictor Horsley Department of Neurosurgery, National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, London, United Kingdom.
Andrew W McEvoyVictor Horsley Department of Neurosurgery, National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, London, United Kingdom.
Sebastien OurselinSchool of Biomedical Engineering & Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Rachel E SparksSchool of Biomedical Engineering & Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
John S DuncanDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Epilepsy, UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, University College London, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: This study aims to refine computer-assisted planning (CAP) of SEEG implantations by adding spatial constraints from prior SEEG trajectories ("Priors") to improve safety and reduce manual adjustments, without increasing planning time. Methods: Retrospective validation based on 159 previously implanted trajectories (11 cases) planned by the clinical standard CAP and CAP constrained with spatial priors ("CAP + Priors"). Constraints included 31 target and 51 entry zones, created from 98 consecutive patients (763 implanted SEEG trajectories). Each of the 159 previously implanted trajectories was planned by two fellows, once with CAP and once with CAP + Priors, in a randomized order. The time taken to generate the initial computer-generated plan (T1) and the user-edited final plan (T2) were recorded together with the proportions of electrodes that required subsequent adjustments. Clinical implantability was assessed via a blinded review of each trajectory by five independent epilepsy neurosurgeons with expertise in SEEG implantation. Results: Expert raters considered 88.5% of trajectories implantable, with no difference in acceptability between CAP alone and CAP + Priors ( Conclusion: Using spatial priors from previous implantations enhances SEEG CAP and increases the granularity of trajectory planning. This approach facilitates more standardized planning and allows for the incorporation of experience from multiple expert centers, decreasing the risk of the resultant trajectories and reducing the proportion of trajectories that require manual planning without significantly increasing planning time.

Indexed as

computer-assisted planningepilepsy surgeryintracranial EEGspatial priorsstereoelectroencephalography (SEEG)surgical planning

Identifiers

PMID40083454
PMCPMC11905814

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.