4.5 Article

Lesion detection in epilepsy surgery: Lessons from a prospective evaluation of a machine learning algorithm

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/dmcn.15727

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study evaluated a lesion detection algorithm for detecting focal cortical dysplasia (FCD) in children undergoing stereoelectroencephalography (SEEG). The algorithm was able to aid in identifying the seizure-onset zone (SOZ) without adverse events in the patients.
Aim: To evaluate a lesion detection algorithm designed to detect focal cortical dysplasia (FCD) in children undergoing stereoelectroencephalography (SEEG) as part of their presurgical evaluation for drug-resistant epilepsy.Method: This was a prospective, single-arm, interventional study (Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, and Long-Term Follow-Up phase 1/2a). After routine SEEG planning, structural magnetic resonance imaging sequences were run through an FCD lesion detection algorithm to identify putative clusters. If the top three clusters were not already sampled, up to three additional SEEG electrodes were added. The primary outcome measure was the proportion of patients who had additional electrode contacts in the SEEG-defined seizure-onset zone (SOZ).Results: Twenty patients (median age 12 years, range 4-18 years) were enrolled, one of whom did not undergo SEEG. Additional electrode contacts were part of the SOZ in 1 out of 19 patients while 3 out of 19 patients had clusters that were part of the SOZ but they were already implanted. A total of 16 additional electrodes were implanted in nine patients and there were no adverse events from the additional electrodes.Interpretation: We demonstrate early-stage prospective clinical validation of a machine learning lesion detection algorithm used to aid the identification of the SOZ in children undergoing SEEG. We share key lessons learnt from this evaluation and emphasize the importance of robust prospective evaluation before routine clinical adoption of such algorithms.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据