Articlenpj health systems2026
Deep learning enabled decision support systems in epilepsy surgery: a scoping review.
Article in npj health systems, 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
- Update of
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Deep learning is increasingly explored to support decision-making in epilepsy surgery, yet evidence for implementation across the epilepsy surgery pathway remains limited. We conducted a scoping review of 145 studies published between January 2018 and May 2025 to map deep learning enabled decision support systems across surgical stages and clinical tasks, characterize datasets by modality, size, geographic provenance and accessibility, and synthesize modeling practices, external validation and workflow integration. The literature is heavily concentrated in the pre-operative stage, with no included intra-operative studies and relatively few post-operative applications. Most studies rely on small, single-center and non-public datasets and use supervised CNN-based models. External validation and workflow-integrated evaluation are uncommon, and only a minority of systems report semi-integrated clinical workflows. These findings highlight key gaps in generalizability, workflow readiness and equity, and inform priorities for multi-center data resources, rigorous cross-site evaluation and clinically meaningful endpoints to enable safe, scalable adoption.
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.