ReviewBrain topography2026
From Computational Models to Clinical Decision-Making in Epilepsy: Bridging the Gap Between Theory and Practice.
Review in Brain topography, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Epilepsy is one of the most heterogeneous and unpredictable neurological disorders, characterized by complex brain dynamics, significant interindividual variability, and a therapeutic response that is often difficult to predict. Despite major advances in neuroimaging, electrophysiology, and antiepileptic treatments, clinical decision-making still faces major challenges, including precisely localizing the epileptogenic zone, predicting seizures, identifying drug-resistant patients, and optimizing personalized therapeutic strategies. Over the past two decades, computational models have gradually emerged as promising tools for addressing these challenges. Early approaches relied primarily on mechanistic biophysical models aimed at reproducing the neural dynamics and mechanisms of hyperexcitability involved in epileptogenesis. More recently, the rise of artificial intelligence and deep learning has facilitated the development of predictive models capable of leveraging large-scale multimodal data. Finally, the emergence of digital brain twins and adaptive closed-loop systems now paves the way for personalized computational medicine integrating simulation, prediction, and real-time therapeutic intervention. This review provides a critical analysis of the major international initiatives developed between 2004 and 2026, including the EPICLUSTER/EBRAINS, EPINOSTICS, ENIGMA-Epilepsy, NeuroPace RNS, SeizeIT, EpiBioS4Rx, and NeuroVista projects, as well as several translational platforms based on artificial intelligence and biophysical modeling. We evaluate the actual contribution of these models to clinical decision-making in epilepsy, their translational contributions, their methodological limitations, and the challenges associated with their integration into hospital settings. We argue that the future of computational epileptology does not rest on the opposition between artificial intelligence and mechanistic models, but on their convergence within explainable, personalized, and clinically interpretable hybrid architectures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42862401What 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.