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>