ArticleComputers in biology and medicine2026
3D printed pediatric head phantom for assessing deep epileptic sources localization.
Article in Computers in biology and medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveAssessing the localization accuracy of electric and magnetic source imaging (ESI/MSI) for deep brain sources using a 3D-printed head phantom.
methodsWe developed a realistic pediatric head phantom preserving brain, skull, and scalp properties with implanted sources in clinically relevant deep brain locations. Localization accuracy of ESI/MSI was assessed across varying noise levels using dipole fitting and dynamic statistical parametric mapping (dSPM).
resultsThe phantom generated realistic MEG and EEG data resembling actual epilepsy patient recordings. MSI showed superior accuracy to ESI for the deep tangential insular source (dipole: ∼17 vs. ∼33 mm; dSPM: ∼24 vs. ∼32 mm). While ESI-ECD localized some radial sources well (e.g. ∼9 mm for brainstem), its dSPM struggled to localize deep sources (e.g. insula and amygdala). Both modalities found the radial thalamus source most challenging to localize.
conclusionsMSI outperformed ESI for localizing deep tangential sources; yet, both techniques struggled to localize deep radial sources. For point-like sources, dipole fitting delivered the highest accuracy (∼9 mm, ESI for brainstem), whereas averaged dSPM was superior for sources with distributed-source behavior (∼13 mm, MSI for orbital gyrus). SIGNIFICANCE: 3D Printed realistic head phantoms can aid assessing the accuracy of ESI/MSI and selecting appropriate methods for different clinical scenarios.
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.