Skip to main content

Table 5 Time taken per patient for Infarct Size (IS) and Area at risk (AAR) quantification by field strength and quantification method

From: Comparison of semi-automated methods to quantify infarct size and area at risk by cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging at 1.5T and 3.0T field strengths

 

Time (minutes)

p

.

17.1 ± 2.4 vs. 20.9 ± 5.5

0.04

1.5T: FWHM v 6SD (IS)

17.1 ± 2.4 vs. 19.4 ± 3.1

0.09

1.5T: FWHM v 7SD (IS)

17.1 ± 2.4 vs. 19.1 ± 3.7

0.13

1.5T: FWHM v 8SD (IS)

17.1 ± 2.4 vs. 19.6 ± 3.2

<0.01

1.5T: FWHM v OAT (IS)

17.1 ± 2.4 vs. 18.0 ± 2.6

0.45

1.5T: FWHM v MANUAL (IS)

17.1 ± 2.4 vs. 21.1 ± 4.7

0.01

1.5T: 5SD v OAT (IS)

20.9 ± 5.5 vs. 18.0 ± 2.6

0.21

1.5T: 2SD v OAT (AAR)

17.1 ± 2.4 vs. 16.7 ± 2.6

0.73

1.5T: 2SD v MANUAL (AAR)

17.1 ± 2.4 vs. 18.3 ± 2.6

0.14

1.5T: OAT v MANUAL (AAR)

16.7 ± 2.6 vs. 18.3 ± 2.6

0.07

3T: FWHM v 5SD (IS)

18.9 ± 2.7 vs. 24.7 ± 9.1

0.08

3T: FWHM v 6SD (IS)

18.9 ± 2.7 vs. 22.2 ± 5.2

0.07

3T: FWHM v 7SD (IS)

18.9 ± 2.7 vs. 22.5 ± 5.3

0.07

3T: FWHM v 8SD (IS)

18.9 ± 2.7 vs. 21.2 ± 3.0

0.08

3T: FWHM v OAT (IS)

18.9 ± 2.7 vs. 20.7 ± 3.2

0.11

3T: FWHM v MANUAL (IS)

18.9 ± 2.7 vs. 24.0 ± 3.7

<0.01

3T: 5SD v OAT (IS)

24.7 ± 9.1 vs. 20.7 ± 3.2

0.25

3T: 2SD v OAT (AAR)

19.6 ± 2.7 vs. 18.5 ± 2.6

0.26

3T: 2SD v MANUAL (AAR)

19.6 ± 2.7 vs. 18.3 ± 2.6

0.31

3T: OAT v MANUAL (AAR)

18.5 ± 2.6 vs. 18.3 ± 2.6

0.83

  1. FWHM = full-width half maximum, 5/6/7/8SD = >5/6/7/8 standard deviation, OAT = Otsu’s Automated Thresholding, 2SD = >2 standard deviations.
  2. p < 0.05 taken as statistically significant.