ArticleNeurology2025
Ultra-High Field 7T MRI in a Drug-Resistant Pediatric Epilepsy Cohort: Image Comparison and Radiologic Outcomes.
Article in Neurology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Enhanced detection of subtle cortical abnormalities in focal epilepsy using 7 T MRI surface-based models and graph neural networks.Neuroradiology · 2026Article
- Beyond FDG: a paradigm shift in precision localization of epileptogenic zones in refractory epilepsy using multimodal molecular imaging (PET/CT) and isotropic 3D MRI fusion.Journal of neurology · 2026Review
- Multinuclear NMR and MRI Beyond Proton Imaging: Principles, Contrast Mechanisms, and Applications in Materials and Biomedicine.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Potential Benefits of Ultra-High Field MRI for Embryonic and Fetal Brain Investigation: A Comprehensive Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- The potential of laminar functional MRI in refining the understanding of epilepsy in humans.Brain : a journal of neurology · 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
26 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesEpileptogenic lesions in focal epilepsy can be subtle or remain undetected on conventional MRI. Ultra-high field (7T) MRI offers higher spatial resolution, contrast, and signal-to-noise ratio compared with conventional field strengths and has shown promise in adult presurgical evaluation. However, its utility in pediatric focal epilepsy, where malformations of cortical development are common, remains unclear. In this study, we directly compared 7T and 3T MRI in children with drug-resistant focal epilepsy, evaluating (1) scan tolerability, (2) image quality, and (3) lesion detection yield.
methodsIn this prospective cohort study, patients were recruited from outpatient clinics at 3 large epilepsy centers in London. Eligible participants were aged 8-17 years and had no contraindications to MRI. Scanning was conducted in 2 separate sessions at 3T and 7T. Safety and tolerability were assessed using age-specific questionnaires and analyzed using the Mann-Whitney test for differences between age groups and the McNemar χ
resultsA total of 63 children were assessed: 41 patients (mean age 12.6 ± 2.4 years, 22 were male) and 22 healthy controls (8-17 years, mean age 11.7 ± 2.7 years, 15 were male). Both field strengths were well tolerated, and side effects were transient. These included higher dizziness-related discomfort at 7T ( DISCUSSION: 7T MRI in children with epilepsy is well tolerated and associated with a 23% improvement in lesion detection, directly affecting clinical management and surgical outcomes. Although limited by a preselected cohort with extensive diagnostic workups, our findings underscore the transformative potential of 7T MRI in presurgical planning for pediatric epilepsy.
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.