ArticleEpilepsia2026
Clinical use and radiological yield of magnetic resonance fingerprinting in epilepsy.
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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveMagnetic resonance fingerprinting (MRF) is a novel paradigm for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) that efficiently generates multiparametric quantitative tissue property maps with a single acquisition. Its quantitative nature offers many advantages over conventional MRI. Although interest in MRF for epilepsy research has grown in recent years, systematic evaluation of its radiological and clinical value as a supplementary imaging modality is limited.
methodsWe reviewed the diagnostic utility of MRF imaging for 100 epilepsy patients undergoing presurgical evaluation. MRF quantitative maps (T1, T2, gray matter fraction, and white matter fraction) were generated and reviewed alongside conventional MRI. MRF findings were classified as (1) consistent-MRF findings the same as conventional MRI; (2) additional-MRF revealed findings beyond those seen on conventional MRI; or (3) discrepant-findings on conventional MRI not reproduced on MRF. We further stratified results by radiological diagnosis or pathology if available. Observations were further classified based on whether T1 or T2 MRF maps provided greater diagnostic utility.
resultsMRF revealed additional findings in a total of 46 patients (46/100, 46%). In one patient, findings on conventional MRI were not recapitulated on MRF (1/100, 1%). In the remaining 53 patients, MRF findings were consistent with conventional MRI (53/100, 53%). Additional benefits of MRF included the following: improved lesion conspicuity (n = 16), improved visualization of lesion extent (n = 11) or asymmetry between bilateral mesial temporal regions (n = 9), differentiation between multiple lesions (n = 5), new lesion identified (n = 2), and visualization of connection between lesion and other areas (n = 1). Added value from MRF was particularly common in patients with focal cortical dysplasia (FCD) type IIa (p = .009 vs. FCD IIb) and periventricular nodular heterotopia. SIGNIFICANCE: Our findings demonstrate the additional yield from MRF in the identification and definition of the extent of epileptogenic lesions, underscoring its potential as a valuable adjunct in presurgical epilepsy evaluation.
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.