Skip to main content
European Journal of Hybrid Imaging

EJNMMI Multimodality Journal

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
Back to article page