Galassi, Francesca Alkhalil, Mohammad Lee, Regent Martindale, Philip Kharbanda, Rajesh K. M. Channon, Keith Grau, Vicente P. Choudhury, Robin Reduction in diameter, comparison between manual and semi-automatic detection (n = 24 data). <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> 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
    https://plos.figshare.com/articles/figure/Reduction_in_diameter_comparison_between_manual_and_semi-automatic_detection_n_24_data_/5755146
10.1371/journal.pone.0190650.g008