Back

Automated Segmentation of Post-Surgical Resection Cavities on MRI in Focal Epilepsy: a MELD Study

Seo, J.; Ripart, M.; Kaas, H.; Sinclair, B.; Vivash, L.; Courtney, M. R.; O'Brien, T. J.; Gopinath, S.; Parasuram, H.; Kandemirli, S.; Alarab, N.; Lai, L.; Likeman, M.; Zhang, K.; Mo, J.; Ciobotaru, G.; Galea, J.; Sequeiros-Peggs, P.; Hamandi, K.; Xie, H.; Illapani, V. S. P.; Gaillard, W. D.; Cohen, N. T.; Weil, A. G.; Henrichon-Goulet, F.; Lahlou, K. S.; Hadjinicolaou, A.; Ibanez, A.; Rojas-Costa, G. M.; Urbach, H.; Bucheler, L.; Heers, M.; Valls Carbo, A.; Toledano, R.; Nobile, G.; Parodi, C.; Tortora, D.; Consales, A.; Riva, A.; Severino, M.; Tisdall, M.; D'Arco, F.; Mankad, K.; Chari, A.;

2026-02-27 neurology
10.64898/2026.02.26.26347093 medRxiv
Show abstract

ObjectiveQuantitative assessment of extent of tissue resection following epilepsy surgery requires accurate delineation of the resection cavity on postoperative MRI. Current methods for resection cavity masking are time-consuming and labour-intensive, while existing automated approaches exhibit variable segmentation accuracy, particularly on extra-temporal resections. We developed MELD-PostOp, a deep learning tool trained and evaluated on a large, heterogeneous cohort to automatically segment resection cavities. MethodsThe study included 1.5 and 3T postoperative 3D T1-weighted MRI images from the Multicentre Epilepsy Lesion Detection (MELD) project (nsubjects=969, 27 centres) and from the EPISURG dataset (n=133). The cohort included children and adults, alongside a range of resection locations, pathologies, and MRI characteristics. Resection cavities were individually segmented in 285 subjects and used to train an nnU-Net prototype model. The prototype model was used to generate an additional 680 resection masks, which were subsequently quality-controlled, edited and combined with the original 285 to train the final MELD-PostOp model (n=965). A Stratified (STC; n=50) and Independent Test Cohort (ITC; n=87) were withheld for model evaluation. Performance was evaluated using Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC), 95th percentile Hausdorff distance (HD95), number of predicted clusters and inference runtime; and compared against established tools (Epic-CHOP and ResectVol). ResultsMELD-PostOp achieved a median DSC of 0.85 and HD95 of 3.61 on the combined test cohort, outperforming Epic-CHOP (DSC 0.68, HD95 9.54) and ResectVol (DSC 0.66, HD95 12.07), with significant improvements seen in both temporal and especially extra-temporal resections. The model detected 99% (135/137) of resection cavities. MELD-PostOp runtime was 17s per MRI, compared to 612s (ResectVol) and 3205s (Epic-CHOP). MELD-PostOp performance remained high across clinical and imaging subgroups (median DSC > 0.8). SignificanceMELD-PostOp provides an accurate, efficient and generalisable solution for postoperative resection cavity segmentation using only postoperative MRI scans. This open-source tool facilitates large-scale quantitative analysis to define what tissue is essential to resect for optimal epilepsy surgical outcomes. Key points- MELD-PostOp automatically segments resection cavities from a postoperative MRI scan in 17 seconds, a 100-200x faster runtime than existing tools - The model was trained on 965 annotated T1-weighted postoperative scans from sites worldwide, supporting its generalisation across diverse clinical and imaging settings. - The model achieves high segmentation accuracy (DSC > 0.8), with consistently high-quality segmentations across age groups, sex, image resolutions, and resection locations.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Epilepsia
49 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
32.9%
2
Brain
154 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
6.4%
3
Annals of Neurology
57 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
4.8%
4
Brain Communications
147 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
4.8%
5
Human Brain Mapping
295 papers in training set
Top 1%
4.8%
50% of probability mass above
6
NeuroImage
813 papers in training set
Top 3%
3.6%
7
NeuroImage: Clinical
132 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.6%
8
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 41%
3.1%
9
Annals of Clinical and Translational Neurology
29 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.1%
10
Epilepsia Open
14 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.6%
11
Neuro-Oncology
30 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.9%
12
Scientific Data
174 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
1.8%
13
Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry
29 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.5%
14
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 57%
1.5%
15
Brain Stimulation
112 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.2%
16
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 56%
1.2%
17
Neuroinformatics
40 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.2%
18
Imaging Neuroscience
242 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.9%
19
npj Parkinson's Disease
89 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.9%
20
Epilepsy & Behavior
12 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.8%
21
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.7%
22
Frontiers in Neurology
91 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%
23
Network Neuroscience
116 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
24
Neurology
44 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%