10.1371/journal.pone.0190650.g008 Francesca Galassi Francesca Galassi Mohammad Alkhalil Mohammad Alkhalil Regent Lee Regent Lee Philip Martindale Philip Martindale Rajesh K. Kharbanda Rajesh K. Kharbanda Keith M. Channon Keith M. Channon Vicente Grau Vicente Grau Robin P. Choudhury Robin P. Choudhury Reduction in diameter, comparison between manual and semi-automatic detection (n = 24 data). Public Library of Science 2018 3 D reconstruction practice artery 1.013 mm 2 2 D X-ray FFR 3 D centreline Optical Coherence Tomography NURBS method control points 1.837 mm 2 assessment luminal surface reconstruction 2 D angiographic projections 3 D models stenosis severity 3 D boundary points 0.213 mm 2 OCT lesion 3 D surface 3 D luminal contours 2 D vessels analysis Non-Uniform Rational B-Spline stenoses Objective Assessment 2018-01-03 18:38:47 Figure https://plos.figshare.com/articles/figure/Reduction_in_diameter_comparison_between_manual_and_semi-automatic_detection_n_24_data_/5755146 <p>On the left, the regression line between the two methods. Regression line has a slope of 0.869 and an intercept of 0.0388. Pearson r-value squared is r<sup>2</sup> = 0.9691. Sum of the squared errors is SSE = 0.021. On the right, the Bland-Altman plot. Reproducibility coefficient and % of mean values RPC (%) = 0.047 (9%); coefficient of variation CV = 4.6%. The solid line represents the mean of the differences; dotted lines define the interval mean difference ± 1.96 SD.</p>