ArticleBrain informatics2026
Pipeline evaluation of a state-of-the-art AI algorithm for detection of focal cortical dysplasia: insights into potential failure sources.
Article in Brain informatics, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeMELD Graph is a state-of-the-art artificial intelligence (AI) model for automated detection of focal cortical dysplasia (FCD), but its performance remains limited, highlighting the need to investigate which aspects of the pipeline affect its accuracy.
methodsA retrospective failure-mode analysis of the MELD Graph pipeline was performed in 242 subjects, with model predictions and FreeSurfer segmentations reviewed to classify errors as segmentation-associated or algorithm-related. FCD imaging features salient to humans were quantified, with statistical associations examined for both MELD Graph detection and focal FreeSurfer segmentation failure.
resultsMELD Graph demonstrated overall performance similar to previously published non-harmonized results, achieving a sensitivity of 69%, specificity of 44%, and positive predictive value (PPV) of 75%. Focal FreeSurfer segmentation failures were associated with 21% of false negative patients, 25% of false positive clusters in patients, and 16% of false positive clusters in controls. Following manual cortical segmentation correction and rerunning of MELD Graph, 67% of the segmentation-associated missed lesions were detected, and segmentation-associated false positive clusters were reduced or eliminated in 75% of controls with such clusters. Higher conspicuity on T1-weighted images was associated with MELD Graph detection, whereas greater conspicuity on T2-FLAIR images relative to T1 was associated with detection failure. Non-bottom-of-sulcus lesion location, higher human conspicuity measures, and low T1 image quality were positively associated with focal FreeSurfer segmentation failures.
conclusionFreeSurfer segmentation failures are a significant potential source of error in the MELD Graph pipeline. FCD imaging features salient to humans and image quality were also associated with variability in algorithm performance. Robust cortical segmentation and stronger integration of T2-FLAIR imaging features may be beneficial for automated FCD detection tools. CLINICAL
trial registrationNot applicable. This study is a retrospective analysis of previously acquired open-source imaging datasets and does not constitute a clinical trial.
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.