SynthesisFrontiers in neurology2025
Application of machine learning approaches to predict seizure-onset zones in patients with drug-resistant epilepsy: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Frontiers in neurology, 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.
- Genetic determinants of metabolic-inflammatory dysregulation and machine learning prediction of COVID-19.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Machine learning (ML) approaches have emerged as promising tools for improving seizure-onset zone (SOZ) prediction in patients with drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE). This systematic review aimed to evaluate the application and performance of ML approaches for SOZ prediction in patients with DRE. A comprehensive search was conducted across PubMed/MEDLINE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Epistemonikos databases for studies employing ML algorithms for SOZ prediction in patients with DRE. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies version 2 (QUADAS-2) tool was adopted to assess the methodological quality and risk of bias of included studies. Data on patient demographics, data acquisition methods, ML algorithms, and performance metrics were extracted and systematically synthesized. Out of a total of 38 studies, 15 studies met the inclusion criteria, encompassing 352 patients (mean age: 28 years, 34% female population). The studies employed various ML techniques, including traditional methods such as support vector machines and advanced deep learning architectures. Performance metrics varied widely across studies, with some approaches achieving accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity values above 90%. Deep learning models generally outperformed traditional methods, particularly in handling complex, multimodal data. Notably, personalized models demonstrated superior performance in reducing localization error and spatial dispersion. However, heterogeneity in data acquisition methods, patient populations, and reporting standards complicated direct comparisons between studies. This review highlighted the potential of ML approaches, particularly deep learning and personalized models, to enhance SOZ prediction accuracy in patients with DRE. However, several challenges were identified, including the need for standardized data collection protocols, larger prospective studies, and improved model interpretability. The findings underscore the importance of considering network-level changes in epilepsy when developing ML models for SOZ prediction. Although ML approaches show promise for improving surgical planning and outcomes in DRE, their clinical utility, particularly in complex epilepsy cases, requires further investigation. Addressing these challenges will be crucial in realizing the full potential of ML in enhancing epilepsy care.
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.