ArticleEpilepsia2026
Surfaced-based detection of focal cortical dysplasia using magnetic resonance fingerprinting and machine learning.
Article in Epilepsia, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers 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
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study was undertaken to develop a framework for focal cortical dysplasia (FCD) detection using surface-based morphometric (SBM) analysis and machine learning (ML) applied to three-dimensional (3D) magnetic resonance fingerprinting (MRF).
methodsWe included 114 subjects (44 patients with medically intractable focal epilepsy and FCD, 70 healthy controls [HCs]). All subjects underwent high-resolution 3-T MRF scans generating T1 and T2 maps. All patients had clinical T1-weighted (T1w) images; 35 also had 3D fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR). A 3D region of interest (ROI) was manually created for each lesion. All maps/images and lesion ROIs were registered to T1w images. Surface-based features were extracted following the Multi-center Epilepsy Lesion Detection pipeline. Features were normalized using intrasubject, interhemispheric, and intersubject z-scoring. A two-stage ML approach was applied: a vertexwise neural network classifier for lesional versus normal vertices using T1w/MRF/FLAIR features, followed by a clusterwise Random Undersampling Boosting classifier to suppress false positives (FPs) based on cluster size, prediction probabilities, and feature statistics. Leave-one-out cross-validation was performed at both stages.
resultsUsing T1w features, sensitivity was 70.4% with 11.6 FP clusters/patient and 4.1 in HCs. Adding MRF reduced FPs to 6.6 clusters/patient and 1.5 in HCs, with 68.2% sensitivity. Combining T1w, MRF, and FLAIR achieved 71.4% sensitivity, with 4.7 FPs/patient and 1.1 in HCs. Detection probabilities were significantly higher for true positive clusters than FPs (p < .001). Type II showed higher detection rates than non-type II. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-positive patients showed higher detection rates and fewer FPs than MRI-negative patients. Seizure-free patients demonstrated higher detection rates than non-seizure-free patients. Subtyping accuracy was 80.8% for non-type II versus type II, and 68.4% for IIa versus IIb, although limited by small sample size. The transmantle sign was present in 61.5% of IIb and 40% of IIa cases. SIGNIFICANCE: We developed an ML framework for FCD detection integrating SBM with clinical MRI and MRF. Advances include improved FP control and enhanced subtyping; selected model outputs may provide indicators of detection confidence and seizure outcome.
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.