ArticleEpilepsia open2025
A public benchmark for human performance in the detection of focal cortical dysplasia.
Article in Epilepsia open, 2025. 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.
- Pipeline evaluation of a state-of-the-art AI algorithm for detection of focal cortical dysplasia: insights into potential failure sources.Brain informatics · 2026Article
- AI in epilepsy neuroimaging.Current opinion in neurology · 2026Review
- Analysis of cortical dysplasias using b-tensor encoding diffusion MRI in an animal model.PloS one · 2026Article
- Surfaced-based detection of focal cortical dysplasia using magnetic resonance fingerprinting and machine learning.Epilepsia · 2026Article
- A public benchmark for human performance in the detection of focal cortical dysplasia.Epilepsia open · 2025Article
- Detection of focal cortical dysplasia: Development and multicentric evaluation of artificial intelligence models.Epilepsia · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
41 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aims to report human performance in the detection of Focal Cortical Dysplasias (FCDs) using an openly available dataset. Additionally, it defines a subset of this data as a "difficult" test set to establish a public baseline benchmark against which new methods for automated FCD detection can be evaluated.
methodsThe performance of 28 human readers with varying levels of expertise in detecting FCDs was originally analyzed using 146 subjects (not all of which are openly available), we analyzed the openly available subset of 85 cases. Performance was measured based on the overlap between predicted regions of interest (ROIs) and ground-truth lesion masks, using the Dice-Soerensen coefficient (DSC). The benchmark test set was chosen to consist of 15 subjects most predictive for human performance and 13 subjects identified by at most 3 of the 28 readers.
resultsExpert readers achieved an average detection rate of 68%, compared to 45% for non-experts and 27% for laypersons. Neuroradiologists detected the highest percentage of lesions (64%), while psychiatrists detected the least (34%). Neurosurgeons had the highest ROI sensitivity (0.70), and psychiatrists had the highest ROI precision (0.78). The benchmark test set revealed an expert detection rate of 49%. SIGNIFICANCE: Reporting human performance in FCD detection provides a critical baseline for assessing the effectiveness of automated detection methods in a clinically relevant context. The defined benchmark test set serves as a useful indicator for evaluating advancements in computer-aided FCD detection approaches. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Focal cortical dysplasias (FCDs) are malformations of cortical development and one of the most common causes of drug-resistant focal epilepsy. Once found, FCDs can be neurosurgically resected, which leads to seizure freedom in many cases. However, FCDs are difficult to detect in the visual assessment of magnetic resonance imaging. A myriad of algorithms for automated FCD detection have been developed, but their true clinical value remains unclear since there is no benchmark dataset for evaluation and comparison to human performance. Here, we use human FCD detection performance to define a benchmark dataset with which new methods for automated detection can be evaluated.
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.