ArticleEpilepsia2026
Fully automated three-dimensional deep learning-based magnetic resonance imaging segmentation of brain cavities in epilepsy surgery.
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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThere are several clinical and research applications for determining the amount of brain tissue resected after epilepsy surgery; however, manual segmentation of postoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is imprecise and time-consuming. In this study, we developed and benchmarked ResectVol DL, a freely available deep learning-based tool that performs this task automatically.
methodsTo create ResectVol DL, we trained a UNet-like deep learning model using postoperative T1-weighted MRI from epilepsy surgery patients and evaluated it against manual delineations (ground truth). ResectVol DL was also compared with three automated methods (ResectVol 1.1.2, DeepResection, and Auto3DSeg) using Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), Pearson correlation coefficient, and relative volume difference from manual segmentation. To assess false-positive detections and generalizability beyond epilepsy, we additionally processed images from healthy controls (no resection) and brain tumor cases.
resultsThe final epilepsy cohort comprised 120 patients (57 women, mean age at surgery = 31.5 ± 15.9 [SD] years), split into training (n = 72) and test (n = 48) sets. An additional 42 images (22 healthy controls and 20 brain tumor cases) were included to test for false positives and generalizability. Segmentation performance differed across methods (Friedman test, p < .001). ResectVol Dl achieved the highest median DSC (.925), significantly outperforming ResectVol 1.1.2, DeepResection, and Auto3DSeg after Bonferroni correction. Volume-based metrics were similar for Auto3DSeg and ResectVol DL (r = .988, relative difference = 8.4% vs. r = .985, 8.1%; no significant difference), yet Auto3DSeg produced three false-positive cavities in no-surgery controls (3/22, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 3%-35%), whereas none was observed for ResectVol DL and DeepResection (0/22, 95% CI = 0%-15%). SIGNIFICANCE: ResectVol DL provides accurate, fully automated segmentation of postoperative resection cavities, offering a robust and reproducible methodological tool for large-scale postoperative imaging studies in epilepsy surgery. ResectVol DL also provides volumetric information derived from region labeling, which may serve as potential input for predictive models associated with surgery outcome; however, this application has not yet been validated.
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.