ArticleEpilepsia2026
Performance of the 5-SENSE score in a pediatric and young adult cohort of 100 consecutive stereoelectroencephalography cases.
Article in Epilepsia, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study assesses the validity of the 5-SENSE score in a cohort of pediatric patients with epilepsy and evaluates associations between the score, ancillary testing, and surgical outcomes. We retrospectively calculated the 5-SENSE score in a single-center predominantly pediatric cohort and calculated the sensitivity and specificity for predicting a non-focal stereo-electroencephalography (SEEG). In addition, we examined the relationship between score and post-surgical outcome. Finally, we evaluated the association between ancillary testing and SEEG focality. One hundred cases were included. The 5-SENSE score had a sensitivity (95% confidence interval [CI]) of 49% (35.6-62.2), specificity of 75% (63.6-85.5), and area under the curve of 0.673 (0.567-0.780). The sensitivity and specificity were similar in children 13 years or younger compared to those older than 13 years. Ancillary testing lateralized in agreement with a focal SEEG finding in 61% of patients, with sensitivity of 43% and specificity of 76% (p = 0.045). Ancillary testing confirmed the 5-SENSE score but did not significantly improve sensitivity. Higher 5-SENSE scores were associated with better Engel outcomes (p = 0.037). The 5-SENSE score performed comparably to the published adult validation cohort. Use of the 5-SENSE score in pediatric patients may improve patient selection for SEEG but is not a sole predictor of result or 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.