Skip to main content

Table 2 Agreement between \({\text{MBF}}_{{{\text{FA}}}}^{{{\text{vs}}}}\) and \({\text{MBF}}_{{\text{C}}}^{{{\text{vs}}}}\) compared to \({\text{MBF}}_{{\text{M}}}^{{{\text{vs}}}}\) measured by way of the Dice coefficient

From: Clinically viable myocardial CCTA segmentation for measuring vessel-specific myocardial blood flow from dynamic PET/CCTA hybrid fusion

 

Manual versus fully automated masks

Manual versus corrected masks

Stress MBF

Rest MBF

Stress MBF

Rest MBF

N samples

840

825

2225

2122

Global Dice coefficient

0.95

0.97

0.94

0.98

LAD Dice coefficient

0.96

0.96

0.95

0.98

LCX Dice coefficient

0.94

0.96

0.95

0.99

rPDA Dice coefficient

0.95

0.98

0.93

0.98

  1. No statistically significant differences were found between global versus per territory assessments, between rest and stress MBF quantifications or due to the anatomical masks used to perform dPET/CCTA fusion