Fig 9.tif (66.18 kB)
Luminal volume, comparison between the proposed method (PM) and OCT.
figure
posted on 2018-01-03, 18:38 authored by Francesca Galassi, Mohammad Alkhalil, Regent Lee, Philip Martindale, Rajesh K. Kharbanda, Keith M. Channon, Vicente Grau, Robin P. Choudhuryn = 6 patients. On the left, the regression line between the two methods. Regression line has a slope of 0.929 and an intercept of 0.286. Pearson r-value squared is r2 = 0.9863. Sum of the squared errors is SSE = 3.2 mm3. On the right, the Bland-Altman plot. Reproducibility coefficient and % of mean values RPC (%) = 6.8(19%). The solid line represents the mean of the differences; dotted lines define the interval mean difference ± 1.96 SD.
History
Usage metrics
Categories
Keywords
3 D reconstructionpracticeartery1.013 mm 22 D X-rayFFR3 D centrelineOptical Coherence TomographyNURBSmethodcontrol points1.837 mm 2assessmentluminal surface reconstruction2 D angiographic projections3 D modelsstenosis severity3 D boundary points0.213 mm 2OCTlesion3 D surface3 D luminal contours2 D vesselsanalysisNon-Uniform Rational B-Splinestenoses Objective Assessment
Licence
Exports
RefWorks
BibTeX
Ref. manager
Endnote
DataCite
NLM
DC