Skip to main content
. 2023 Mar 28;13(5):3161–3173. doi: 10.21037/qims-22-1227

Table 5. A comparison of the quantitative image analysis among the eight image datasets.

FBP AV-30 AV-50 AV-80 AV-100 DL-L DL-M DL-H P value
SD 36.56±2.92c,d,e,f,g,h 29.17±2.38d,e,g,h 24.21±2.10d,e,h 17.09±1.89e,f 12.51±1.87f, g 23.50±1.91h 18.61±1.78h 13.51±1.59 ≤0.001
SNR 2.87±0.48c,d,e,f,g,h 3.63±0.60d,e,g,h 4.38±0.73d,e,h 6.24±0.95f 8.77±1.41f, g 4.51±0.78h 5.67±0.98h 7.92±1.37 ≤0.001
CNR 1.17±0.37d,e,f,g,h 1.47±0.46d,e,g,h 1.77±0.56d,e,h 2.52±0.80 3.48±1.18f 1.82±0.55h 2.31±0.70 3.18±0.97 ≤0.001

Data are presented as the mean ± standard deviation. c, Statistical significance with AV-50, P≤0.001. d, Statistical significance with AV-80, P<0.05. e, Statistical significance with AV-100, P<0.05. f, Statistical significance with DL-L, P<0.05. g, Statistical significance with DL-M, P≤0.001. h, Statistical significance with DL-H, P<0.05. SD, standard deviation for paraspinal muscle; SNR, signal-to-noise ratio of liver; CNR, contrast-to-noise ratio of liver.