SynthesisEpilepsia2026
Use of artificial intelligence in magnetic resonance imaging across the epileptic patient's journey: A meta-analysis of four clinical applications.
Synthesis 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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe application of artificial intelligence/machine learning (AI/ML) to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) promises to enhance and support clinical decision-making in epilepsy. However, there currently lacks an appropriate assessment of clinical utility and study rigor of current AI/ML-driven models that are targeted toward supporting decision-making within the clinical workup in epilepsy.
methodsWe systematically reviewed and examined the ability of current AI/ML-driven models in MRI across four main applications within the clinical workup(s) for epilepsy: (1) diagnosis, (2) temporal lobe epilepsy lateralization, (3) lesion (focal cortical dysplasia) localization, and (4) postsurgical outcome prediction. We additionally assessed the risk of bias for each study model. Studies that employed AI/ML classification models trained on any MRI modality or sequence type were selected for qualitative assessment; those reporting accuracy rates were subsequently included in the meta-analysis.
resultsOf 3227 searched articles, we identified 159 studies (n = 26 732 participants) for qualitative evaluation and 127 studies (n = 20 456) for inclusion in the meta-analysis. Our results reveal that AI/ML on MRI could accurately distinguish epilepsy patients from healthy controls (overall accuracy = .87, 95% confidence interval [CI] = .85-.89), lateralize temporal lobe epilepsy (.90, 95% CI = .87-.93), localize epileptogenic lesions (.82, 95% CI = .74-.87), and predict postsurgical seizure freedom (.83, 95% CI = .78-.87). However, systematic assessment indicated a very high risk of bias in the literature, suggestive of overly optimistic performance estimates. SIGNIFICANCE: Although our results support overall high accuracy of AI/ML models in epilepsy diagnostics and prognostics, the literature remains susceptible to bias in participant recruitment and validation methods. Furthermore, most models were limited by study architecture that demands strict adherence to nonstandard, highly specific data acquisition and processing protocols that cannot be easily deployed for clinical implementation. We encourage closer interdisciplinary collaboration between clinical and scientific groups to improve validation studies, and outline suggested recommendations for future study design, analysis, and reporting.
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.